This is a place for all English, ESL, English Language and Literature students to post their work for comment and criticism.
ANY HELP/THOUGHTS WOULD BE APPRECIATED GUYS, cheers :)
Hi. This is an intro and first paragraph for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Could you please have a look?
Albee’s play Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? responds to the development of popular dissatisfaction in the patriotic institutions of post-second world war America.Albee develops allegorical allusion throughout his absurdist production to convey his view that the noble society envisaged by the signatories of the declaration of independence had faltered.I don't think its necessary to give background info - just start your analysis
Albee’s allusion to George and Martha Washington through Martha and George this is not clear, why do you need to repeat their names? facilitates the development of an allegorical reading in which the illusion of the child is a motif for the progress of American Society. The cycle of “fun and games” and distortion of truth which propels the play’s narrative is established as Martha uses the plot of “that Bette Davis film” to develop a thinly veiled criticism of the “modest” nature of their lifestyle. this reads well but I think you need some more specific textual analysis As Martha contrasts George with the ironic description of “modest Joseph Cotton”, a symbol of male sexuality, she bemoans their “modest cottage”. As Martha insists that the ambiguous “she” is “discontent[ed]”, she makes it clear that she blames George’s failure to progress within the college for their circumstances. Martha’s claim of discontentedness avoid repetition, perhaps use dissatisfaction becomes critical as later in the play she reveals that “only one man has ever made [her] happy”. The fact that man is George avoid using 'the fact that', perhaps you could rewrite this: 'This man is George, which shatters ...'shatters one of the central precepts of the play (that Martha really is seeking escape) you don't need to put this in brackets - just use commasandif you use my suggestion, change this to which gives the audience pause time? to consider what other fundamental truths may simply be illusion. As Martha states that their son was “raised as best I can against… vicious odds, against the corruption of weakness and petty revenges”, Albee develops an implicit link between the “corruption” facing American society, the “vicious odds” that surrounded the birth of a nation and the fate of the son. As George avoid starting two sentences with 'as' counters that their son is “a son who is deep in his gut sorry to have been born”, perhaps you could start the quote at 'deep in his gut...' to avoid the repetition of 'son'Albee contends that rather than triumph over the “vicious odds”, America has instead fallen. In the development of this dialogue Albee contrasts the vision of the founding fathers with the realities of contemporary society. In doing so Albee argues that America’s self image of messianic democracy is itself a grand delusion. I think you need to do a bit more textual analysis - perhaps looking at language features or punctuation. I liked how you linked to the author's views and values at the end. Your expression is very good, my suggestions are only minor things. Please don't think I'm being too harsh! :)
Feedback would be awesome :)
"All the Pretty Horses"- Cormac McCarthy
For Cormac McCarthy the austerity of modern society has the tendency to stifle human dreams. Pervading the passages is the realization that the innate desire to be “somethin special” is unfounded amongst maybe impossible in... would be better the rigid reality of the changing world.
With the lyrical tonetoof passage one, McCarthy illuminates his character’s affinity for the romantic West. The manner in which Cole “walked among [the horses] with sweat and dust” isolates a simplistic nature to the passage far removed from the brutality of passage two. good link between passagesMcCarthy places the scene amongst the backdrop of “high headlands” and “wind tattered fire” in addition to the perhaps 'and uses imagery of...' imagery of the wild horses to reinforce the untouched segment of Mexico that remains you need to reinforce something, perhaps you could say: 'to demonstrate that segments of Mexico remain untouched even...' even amongst the lattice of corruption. With this in mind, the “souls of horses” act as a symbol of incomparable purity, a notion that is reasserted in the repetition of the phrase by Luis. Thus,inthrough the personification of the horses-“horses also love war”- coupled with the manner in which the “souls of horses mirror the souls of men” - McCarthy elucidates how humanity has fallen away from its spiritual moorings within the context of Mexican society.
Similarly the defining act of violence in passage two-Blevins’ murder- is met with an almost inaudible “pop” as McCarthy portrays the extent to which society has become desentized to the horrors within it. The false sense of security within the reader as the captain “put one arm around the boy” is ensconced I haven't read the text, but do you really mean 'ensconced'? If I understand what you're trying to say correctly, I would put 'The reader develops a false sense of security as the captain (quote), which is shattered/broken/a better word after the subsequent acts of brutality.' Feel free to disregard what I said if I didn't understand it correctly. :D in the brutality of the actoftofollow. The paradoxical nature of the simile “like some kindly advisor” evidences the growing deceit within the novel, as the captain transforms into a murderer without reservation. The confounding nature of this act is portrayed in McCarthy’s description of Blevinsas he utilisesyou can just say 'using' the diminutive adjectives “small” and “ragged” to detail a figure that all but “vanish[es]” from the world. McCarthy marriages you mean marries?! the disbelief of Rawlins’ comment “they caint just walk him out there and shoot him” to the “flat sort of pop” marking Blevins’ demise, to portray the alienation of the two Americans’ moralistic foundations. Thus, the reader comprehends that the romantic ideals governing Cole’s and Rawlins view of violence at the outset of the novelisaremisplaced within you can just say 'in'reality.
The resignation of Cole in the comment “it just bothered me you might think I was somethin special” highlights the insufficiency of the character’s no need for an apostrophe!! throughout All the Pretty Horses remember to underline the title when you're writing. In both passages two and three the reader envisionsmaybe sees or perceives a defeated individual; a jarring disjunction to the image of youthful adventure embodied by Cole and Rawlins at the commencement of the novel. McCarthy attributes Cole’s defection from the idyllic human dream to the failing of his moral code in the face of a disparaging Mexican society, evidenced in the despair of the comment “I never said nothin” in relation to Blevins’ murder. Expanding upon this notion is the phrase “strange land, strange sky “of passage two. In the repetition of ‘strange”, McCarthy reestablishes the connotations maybe 'idea' of displacement within the minds of the readers and therefore illuminates the social segregation between Coles and Rawlins and society. Hence, the casual nature of the captain’s comment- “Vamonos”- after killing Blevins, epitomizes the reality of such occurrences that Cole in passage three finally comprehends; they I think you need to explain what 'they' is. Perhaps you could start a new sentence are embedded within humanity and anthe individual is powerless to change it. A good paragraph, but perhaps you could begin with some more textual analysis
Contrary to this damning vision of society in passages two and three, passage one depicts the images that Cole and Rawlins envision at the outset of their journey. Even the harsh imagesavoid repetition of wild horses “biting and kicking” are suppressed in the euphemism “some evil dream of horses” as McCarthy laments a society tearing away from its spiritual foundings. perhaps 'origins' would be betterThe melodic tone good textual analysisutilized in Luis’ “tales of the country” elucidates an air of deep longing that the reader indeed attributes to Cole. Yet, in the confession “war had destroyed the country”coupled with'and in' I don;t think you can use 'coupled with' if you start the sentence with 'in'the oxymoronic phrase “the cure for war is war”, Luis implies that this dream is one that had long faded into the depths of a suppressive do you mean oppressive?world.
McCarthy ultimately attributes the degradation of the human dream to the rapid onset of a deeply mechanical society. Thus, All the Pretty Horses is a lamentation, and a cautionary reminder of the dying human dream and the “country” it embodies. maybe refer back to the passages again. You could say something like 'Throughout Passages One and Two, McCarthy...' Apart from a few small issues with expression, this is generally excellent! I liked how you could link the specific analysis of the passages to comments about the work as a whole and the author's intentions/beliefs. Your links between the passages were also good. Well done! :)
I'm only doing 1/2 Literature, but we've got to do CPA as well (you guys sound so professional though, it's scary how you redefine 'close'. I don't think I could've picked up on half the things you do). Anyways, it's on the Great Gatsby, which isn't too much of a hard read as the author really just spells out all of his techniques for you.Analysis is good, but you need to work on your expression. Lexicon choices are diminishing your clarity and the ease of comprehension. Also, if you can, cut down on the commas, it'll help to allow for the flow of your ideas, as opposed to constantly delaying the contention of your sentences, which can really confuse the examiner and detract from your discussion.
It took me around 4 hours to write, but I write very quickly when under pressure (now that I can recall all the phrases I've used here). I was thinking of maybe doing one under timed circumstances just to see how I'd go.
The Great Gatsby, F.Scott Fitzgerald's magnum opus, repudiates the idea of the "American Dream"- a romantic idealism characterised by the pursuit of material wealth and hedonistic desires, which was exceedingly prevalent in the societal paradigm of 1920s New York, the setting of the novel. As The Great Gatsby progresses through critiques of duplicity, as seen in Passage One and Two, to the unraveling of its protagonists sanguine vision, as seen in Passage Three, Fitzgerald's equanimous tone - established through 'soft' sounds such as in "sedative" and "velvet" in Passage One which lend a 'smooth' quality to the extract, to the use of "muffled" and "suffocating" in Passage Three - words which convey abnegation and repressed friction, caresses and guides the novel with its objective, detached hand. Fitzgerald's objectivity is significant herein - it functions as a paragon by which the reader can measure the accuracy of not only his/her own perceptions of the novel's reality, but the perceptions of Fitzgerald's characters, whose autonomous notions of what truly is are "worn so threadbare" that, like the narrator, one cannot help but feel the "basic insincerity" that permeates them.
The notion that one can "self-determine one's character" is critiqued in Passages One and Two. Daisy's comment "that's the best thing a girl can be...a beautiful little fool" demonstrates that although she is aware of the balance of power between the masculine and the feminine within the social context of The Great Gatsby, she prefers to erect a façade of nescience with which she can transcend into carelessness, into an abode where she cannot be measured against the same moral standards as if she was aware. This falseness, this elaborate 'trick' of her character is exposed to the reader when her masquerade is compared to a 'membership in a rather distinguished secret society.... to which she and Tom belonged'. Herein lies Fitzgerald's challenge to hedonism and the accumulation of material wealth - in spite of the Buchanans' privileged status as residents of East Egg, in itself a 'distinguished secret society', even they must resort to pretense - they are not, regardless of what their wealth or demeanor suggests, truly happy.
Indeed, time and time again in The Great Gatsby the ability of one to be defined merely on social stature is questioned. Consider, for example, the 'incredulity' that Carraway expresses at Gatsby's post hoc explanation of how he came into his wealth in Passage Two - 'My family all died and I came into a great deal of money'. Evocative images are established through 'rajah', 'jewels' and 'turbaned' - words which lend an exotic undertone to Gatsby's narrative but juxtapose sharply with Carraway's, and a western reader's, realism, causing a dissonance which ultimately renders the explanation absurd. The reader thus agrees with Carraway who, with 'effort', 'restrains his laughter' and the author subsequently capitalises on this newfound scepticism by following it with a recital of Gatsby's experiences during the war, with the intent that the reader will henceforth be predisposed to dismiss Gatsby's tale as fabrication. Indeed, this passage alludes to Fitzgerald's concern that Gatsby's belief that he can create himself, his self-prescribed status as a 'son of God', is essentially fallacious as it contradicts the basic human position of being subject to fate, the constraints of one's social class and ultimately the transience of time.
Fitzgerald's minimifidianism towards Gatsby's delusional image of himself is developed further in Passage Three. The notion that one can change the past, a notion that Gatsby expresses when he states "it's all wiped out forever" is reminiscent of the broken clock earlier in the text, a metaphor which echoed the author's stance that time remains fundamentally outside the domain of human control. Gatsby's reverie - of being able to mould time with a divine dexterity, is revealed as quixotic by the use of phrases such as 'perceptible reluctance' and 'She hesitated", which demonstrate that it is only Gatsby, who, being so trapped in his crucible of narcissism and self-bestowed omnipotence, is not able to perceive the Utopian and unrealistic nature of his dream, while the other characters are easily able to do so. It is of great significance herein that Gatsby's dream is ultimately shattered by the falling of a cigarette - "she threw the cigarette and the burning match on the carpet". A symbol associated with ash, the cigarette alludes to the 'Valley of Ashes', itself a greater metaphor for the ultimately barren consequences, and unsustainable nature, of the American Dream. Fitzgerald, through the use of the cigarette, seems to remind the reader that, like the American Dream which he represents, Gatsby's vision is flawed - it fails on a basic level to comprehend the limitations of it's bearer, which, primarily, are the limitations of humanity itself - time, place and circumstance.
In this regard, Passage Three's ideas are merely extensions of the ones presented in Passage One and Two, but nonetheless remain an important progression in the context of The Great Gatsby - they show how the ability to masquerade one's personality as another can slowly metamorphose into a chimera, a false sense of divinity. This, Fitzgerald suggests, is what leads to Gatsby's downfall - the phrase '(the) words seemed to physically bite into him' bluntly revealing the fact that Gatsby's vision is not grounded in rationality or experience but in a construct of 'words', of fantasy. Gatsby's death, therefore, came not from the hands of George Wilson - that was only the physical manifestation, a mechanism used by Fitzgerald to resolve, give closure to the text, but rather from Daisy's 'reluctance' and eventual rejection, from 'words', the only means that could 'physically bite into him'. His death symbolises the death of the American Dream itself, and as the reader draws parallels between the fundamentally meretricious nature of both Gatsby's vision and the 'Dream', Fitzgerald reveals that the underlying paradigm of selfish optimism in both is an opium from which not only Gatsby, but civilisation as a whole, draws the justification for it's immorality. In summation, The Great Gatsby's critique of The American Dream stems from a deep understanding of how such a notion can be exploited to rationalise heinous and amoral activities - and this tendency to exploit, the author seems to suggest, comes so instinctively to the human position that it warrants the death of the Dream altogether.
Analysis is good, but you need to work on your expression. Lexicon choices are diminishing your clarity and the ease of comprehension. Also, if you can, cut down on the commas, it'll help to allow for the flow of your ideas, as opposed to constantly delaying the contention of your sentences, which can really confuse the examiner and detract from your discussion.
Break the sentences up. Short is good. I'm studying Lit at university but the same problems you're having are still haunting me! So it's good to abolish the practices early.
Thanks for this! Re : comma usage, should I try and 'loosen up' the sentences by breaking them in two, or should I use conjunctions to reduce the number of commas?
And yeah, excessively big phrases is a pitfall of mine. Will work on it over the holidays. thanks again, much appreciated.
Break the sentences up. Short is good. I'm studying Lit at university but the same problems you're having are still haunting me! So it's good to abolish the practices early.
I've tried doing this for the introduction - is this a bit better?The language is still too ornate. To quote my good friend Kurt Vonnegut, 'Use words that I know.' When he said 'I', he meant to make it so that the person reading it can extract the meanings and arguments you're trying to get across the first time they read each sentence.
The Great Gatsby by F.Scott Fitzgerald's repudiates the idea of the "American Dream"- a romantic idealism characterised by the pursuit of material wealth and hedonistic desires, which was exceedingly prevalent 1920s New York, the setting of the novel. The duplicitous nature of such a paradigm is critiqued in Passages One and Two, where Fitzgerald's equanimous tone - established through 'soft' sounds such as in "sedative" and "velvet" lend a clarity to the extract, allows the reader to focus on the criticism. Furthermore, the development of abnegation and friction in Passage Three through the use of "muffled" and "suffocating" creates a juxtaposition between the detached authorial perspective and the characters in the text, as the reader is shown the failure of the Dream itself. Fitzgerald's objectivity is significant herein - it functions as a paragon by which the reader can measure the accuracy of not only his/her own perceptions of the novel's reality, but the perceptions of Fitzgerald's characters, whose autonomous notions of what truly is are "worn so threadbare" that, like the narrator, one cannot help but feel the "basic insincerity" that permeates them.
I've tried doing this for the introduction - is this a bit better?Great work for a person whose never set foot in a 3/4 lit classroom, keep this standard up and you should kill it next year :)
The Great Gatsby by F.Scott Fitzgerald's repudiates the idea of the "American Dream"- a romantic idealism characterised by the pursuit of material wealth and hedonistic desires, which was exceedingly prevalent (redundant, check your expression) 1920s New York, the setting of the novel. The duplicitous nature of such a paradigm is critiqued in Passages One and Two, where Fitzgerald's equanimous tone - established through 'soft' sounds such as in "sedative" and "velvet" lend a clarity to the extract, allows the reader to focus on the criticism (would be valuable to flesh this idea out a bit, if not for the sake of the reader's own clarity, then at least to not make it seem as though you've quoted 'sedative' and 'velvet' for the sake of quoting them. Can you express this same idea in simple, informal english?). Furthermore, the development of abnegation and friction in Passage Three through the use of "muffled" and "suffocating" creates a juxtaposition between the detached authorial perspective and the characters in the text (be careful to find a balance between how closely you analyse the text versus how broad what you conclude from the text is: plucking two words from the extract may not be sufficient evidence to justify what you draw out from it, as the reader is shown the failure of the Dream itself. Fitzgerald's objectivity is significant herein - it functions as a paragon by which the reader can measure the accuracy of not only his/her own perceptions of the novel's reality, but the perceptions of Fitzgerald's characters, whose autonomous notions of what truly is are "worn so threadbare" that, like the narrator, one cannot help but feel the "basic insincerity" that permeates them.
Bold Text - Syntax.
Passages from Hamlet
-Act 1 Scene 2 line 129-159 (Hamlet's soliloquy)
-Act 1 Scene 5 line 42-90
The throes of passionate grief and disillusionment evident Hamlet’s despairing cry “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt”, causes the young price of Denmark to momentarily deviate from any sense of reason, allowing suicidal impulses and his melancholia to rule his mind – rendering him prone to irrational statements which generalise the “frailty” of women and the flaws of mankind. That is a super long sentence for an introductory para, stick to short succinct intros that clearly establish your overarching views. (2012 assessors report has great examples) However, while Hamlet’s hyperbolic deification of his father as “Hyperion” is unrealistic in the light of the imperfections of human existence, such an idealisation encapsulates the central position the rightful king holds in the medieval worldview. The “leperous distilment” dispatching the king’s life in an instance of murky subterfuge driven by Claudius spreads through the state of Elsinore, clouding the senses with a haze of corruption and staining any “noble” intentions with a necessity for subterranean dealings. With the natural order upturned and the world out of balance, the appearance of the Ghost and its portentous words, highlights the utter annihilation of any ability of character to trust their own senses or the words of other individuals. As the very fabric of reality forbiddingly unravels, every character too broad in Hamlet fails to uphold moral principle – they are left to agitatedly clutch at the fraying seams not realising their every dubious action only serves to further the corruption permeating their world. I like some sentences in here, although, I think you need to use more 50cent words. The KISS approach is always good!
In the distracted meanderings of Hamlet’s grief-stricken persona of extract one, Shakespeare communicates the crippling effect the extremes of passion have on the ability to reason and form rational judgements. short works! well done. The disconnecttion between Hamlet’s central state of mind as a philosopher and his decidedly human need to express his frustration surfaces with the suicidal impulse “Oh, that this too too solid flesh would melt” which is immediately followed by his wish that the “Everlasting had not fix’d / His canon ‘gainst self-slaughter”. Even in this highly emotional state, Hamlet is unable to entirely separate his philosophical nature from his expression of grief and he oscillates between primal cries of “O God, God…Fie on’t! ah fie!” and his metaphysical recognition of the flaws in humanity; of the “unweeded garden” possessed by “things gross in nature”. whilst this is great, what does it establish? move back, what was shakespeare commenting on? While the melodrama evident in Hamlet’s hyperbolic declarations of how “weary, stale, flat and unprofitable” the world is demonstrates the depth of passion gripping the young prince, the true dangers of such a state lies in the blindness such emotional excess provokes. The cracks in Hamlet’s image as a paragon of enlightenment, far removed from the primitive mindset of the medieval warrior, become evident as Hamlet deviates from a logical and rational state of mind and descends into mental incontinence; taking his mother’s marriage to Claudius in “wicked speed” as a direct act of betrayal to himself. Blinded by his heightened state of emotion, Hamlet ironically becomes prey to the “fire” which burns within, vilifying Claudius as a satyr – an icon of carnal, passionate urges – while being overtaken by the same impulses himself. In addition, through placing Old Hamlet on a pedestal and highlighting his perfection and grandeur as would befit Hamlet’s earlier description of him as “Hyperion” the Greek sun god, Shakespeare conveys Hamlet’s willingness to overlook his father’s “sin” and create an idealised paragon of a father and king in order to denigrate Claudius. At the peak of his emotional tempest, Hamlet descends into a level of gross misogyny and defames all women because of his mothers choices- bluntly stating “Frailty, thy name is woman”. Thus, through Hamlet’s fall into a rut of emotional chaos, Shakespeare reveals Hamlet’s own human frailties and the predisposition of passion to incite blindness and a loss of mental coherency.
just from experience, try referencing the author more in the first sentences, 'Shakespeare establishes...' While passions are apt to cause temporary blindness in the individual, it is the spiteful scheming of Claudius as related by the Ghost which holds true dangers for the state of the land as a whole. The “cursed hebenon” poured into the late king’s “ear” parallels more of this! succinct quotes work. that's what the examiners want. the profoundly damaging impact on the “whole ear of Denmark” – an obscuring and dimming sometimes less is more, pick one. of the senses – leaving individuals struggling to find the truth and often resorting to underhanded methods to do so. The portentous appearance of the Ghost is an abnormal colliding of the supernatural plane with the natural world; a state of affairs symbolising the rent in the natural order of things. The Ghost’s arrogant referral to Claudius as “a serpent” and a “wretch” who seduced Gertrude through “shameful lust” taps into Hamlet’s distain for human weakness and frailty and plays on his innate disgust of his mother’s union with her uncle; a fact Hamlet believes is “incestuous”. Perhaps more importantly, through the allusions of the “serpent” and the perfect “angel” representing Gertrude, the Ghost alludes to a falling-off, reminiscent of the original sin which has Claudius as the evil one tempting Eve to fall. In the context of the Elizabethan audience – a Renaissance society holding a firm belief and understanding of God and the Bible account found in Genesis – the biblical imagery of a serpent tempting Eve would have resonated strongly and captured the illegitimacy of Claudius’ reign on the throne, having killed his brother and married the queen. It is this microcosm of the original Fall which irretrievably blemishes Denmark. Just like the Ghost, Claudius, in his ill-gotten position as king, is an intrusion on the normal course of nature. *inhale* Due to Claudius’ perfidious hand in the assassination of the instated arbiter of justice – the divine representative of God in the strict hierarchy of the medieval ruling structure and the symbolic father of the people in the land – the people of Denmark are condemned to endure under the dishonest reign of an illegitimate and duplicitous king whose predisposition to disingenuous conversation and blatant espionage produces an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust which permeates and corrupts. breathe! full stops allow for people to take a breath!
Would love any feedback! :) I am doing Literature 1/2 currently and preparing for 3/4 next year. We did Hamlet this year.
You are talented! If I could write like this in year 11 I would be super happy. You should see some of the people who were in my class, they thought they could turn it into an english essay (lets not go there...).
Try move away from the thesaurus, stick with simplicity to develop ideas rather than trying to sound articulate. I'm sure your more basic essays would be a lot more cohesive (not sure if that's the word I'm looking for tbh).
More of what Shakespeare was doing, how does he do it and why? Syntactical construction- how does Shakespeare construct this etc. Be subtle but not too subtle! It's the impossible (yet possible) balance :P
Also- last thing, do you think you could write this in an hour from three passages? My teacher always asked me that, got me thinking and really condensed my essays. Otherwise, it's getting there! Great essay. Nothing to worry about for next year. NOW REST YOUR BRAIN FOR YEAR 12!! ;)
Tim Winton’s collection of short stories, The Turning, highlight the proposition that in every person’s life, there are moments of pivotal importance that will ultimately shape where that person will go and who they will become. These ‘turnings’ and epiphany’s are catalyzed by events in one’s life, relating to moments, people, places and time. Winton introduces his collection with ‘Big World’. A story, that even in it’s title remains true to this concept.heyThe story opens with the end of highschool for an unnamed narrator and his best friend, Biggie. The story then follows the pair as they leave their town, escaping the disappointment of their exam results.You want to avoid story telling in Literature at all costs. This adds nothing to your analysis and only shows that you know what the plot is. At the heart of this story lies perhaps the most central and oldest feeling one experiences; belonging. Winton cleverly covers all aspects of belonging, highlighting the importance of one understanding themselves, explaining the fragility of relationships and their effect, and, in-turn utiliseing this to acceptance to form meaningful friendships. It would be nice if you could utilise some embedded quotes from the text to support this section as it shows you are working with the language of the text rather than listing themes
For your introduction I would also consider adding in some comments on views and values: this is something about what Winton himself values in relation to the ideas that you have brought up, or something about the context of the era in which the short stories are set / context of Tim Winton's Australian society
Big World by Tim Winton shows that an individual’s understanding about themselves provides them with a sense of belonging.Belonging is shown to be a desire for social bonds that provide an individual with a sense of safety and comfort, a theme prevalent in Big World. No need for a definition of belonging, also try to avoid reducing the text to themes. Rather than talking about the vague idea of 'belonging', you might want to introduce the ideas as being 'the social pressure to conform' or the 'search for a meaningful identity in a conformist, routine world'Upon the completion of high-school, the narrator reflects on the days proceeding the exam-period, expressing his disappointment in his results and the unhappy situation he finds himself in.Try to remove storytelling, notice how you can just delete this whole sentence and start with your next sentence without losing any analysisAtFrom the outset, the persona establishes a negative connotation in the tedious routine of work This could be phrased better as it doesn't flow too well. Also rather than 'the persona' it might be more accurate to say that 'Winton establishes etcetc', which is conveyedinthrough the use of short sentences, “The job mostly consists of hosing blood off the floors” and further accentuated by, ‘Some days I can see biggie and me out there on old codgers, anchored to the friggin place, stuck forever…’ These sentence alone expresses the persona’s unhappiness and sense of detachment from the situation he finds himself in. In the third paragraph, high modality is used in “That I dream of escaping, of pissing off north to find some blue sky” to accentuate that the persona has a deep sense of understanding about himself and the place he will belong to. He supports this by further exclaiming, in reference to his friend, ‘Unlike him, I’m not really from here’. Here it seems you are talking about the theme of 'belonging' but you are not really giving any broader analysis of your idea. You want to discuss how this dissatisfaction is relevant to society or the context of these short stories or to Winton himself A change to positive atmosphere is achieved when he visits Perth in the visual imagery “the air was soupy, salty” Perfect opportunity to discuss the minutae of language here: notice the alliteration of soupy and salty. Depending on the rest of the quote, you can also discuss maybe how the short phrases give the writing an ethereal quality, perhaps contrasting against the drudgery of his mundane worldand oral imagery “birds in the mint scented scrub all round”. The simile in “nervous and giggly like a pair of tipsy travellers” Once again you want to discuss the specifics of the language, the alliteration of the 't' sound in tipsy travellers, the lighthearted affect of the repeated 'g' sound and 't' sound and how that accentuates what is being conveyed in the similestresses that he belongs to Perth and it gives him a sense of personality. However, even this sense of connection is short lived as the fire metaphorically burns this idea and audiences are forwarded to a time of bleakness. Thepersona proceeds to relate the effect of the fire with his view of the worldCut out storytelling. Instead use a short clause such as: The persona's recollection etcetc, “The sky goes all acid blue and there’s just this huge silence. It’s like the world’s stop”. The lines that proceed then describe a bleak future of alienation. Try and support with quotes: even inserting one word quotes into a sentence can add more weight to your assertion In this way, Big World’, illustrates a vital aspect of belonging; an understanding about themselves and the world around them to belong.Have you really shown this though. It seems like the start and end of your paragraph are meant to be connected, but you haven't given enough discussion of your evidence to fully support your wider idea.
Big World also shows that relationships are essential to belonging. This is expressed in the persona’s friendship with Biggie, which provides him with a sense of security and means of overcoming obstacles in life. This is expressed Avoid using the same phrase so close together as it makes your writing less fluent in the bullying the persona encountered by Tony Macoli and that Biggie saved him from itYou need quotes otherwise this is basically just storytelling. Winton highlights that healthy relationships do not only provide companionship but also safety, security and satisfaction. Quotes / Evidence? The juxtaposition of Biggie and Tony Macoli in “Biggie became my mate, my constant companion, and Tony Macoli was suddenly landscape” explains that to belong, a healthy relationship is needed. The persona explains that Biggie helped him overcome the news of his horrid exam results as “the ache is still there inside me but this is the best I’ve felt since the news about the exams”. Thus, a healthy relationship is essential to belonging and provides individuals with a sense of security and satisfaction. The analysis here seems a little superficial and I would like to see some closer analysis of the language
Paralleling a complementary notion, Tim Winton highlights on his theme of belonging, by acknowledging the very heart of it; a strong sense of mateship. Through the repetition of the phrase, “Biggie and me”, Winton focuses Good: close analysis of the writing techniques and the intent of the authoron the strong bond between the two protagonists and emphasizes on the theme of mateship, which lurks in the story Try to avoid just talking about 'mateship' as a broad theme but focus on some more specific idea around mateship . The positive connotation is evident in the way the persona describes Biggie, Biggie’s not the brightest crayon in the box but he’s the most loyal person I know’, displaying the respect and love the persona has for his best friend Some extra analysis: maybe how the light insult 'not the brightest...' actually demonstrates that these two characters are close friends. However, although there is a strong sense of mateship, the fragile nature of friendship is also embedded within the story, as shown through the informal phrase, “To be honest, he’s not my sort of bloke at all, but somehow he’s my best mate”. This goes to reveal that although the persona and Biggie are friends, their friendship is based on the persona “feeling somehow senior and secure in himself”, openly admitting that he enjoys, ‘being brighter, being a step ahead’. These quotes point out the contradiction of friendship and how even the closest form of friendship has a fragility and a price; further supported by the statement ‘Friendship comes at a price…’ You can probably just integrate this quote in your previous sentence like this: the closest form of friendship has a fragility and 'comes at a price'. and explaining that ‘there have been girl’s I’ve disqualified myself from because of Biggie’. What does this revelation mean, when you give these kinds of quotes, you have to analyse them Through these opposing aspects of friendship and belonging, Winton portrays the idea of belonging in a new light by presenting that an aspect of belonging will also encompass a knowledge of how fragile the relationships that make one feel safe and secure are.
Overall, you have very solid ideas and its obvious you understand your text quite well. The analysis especially at the end uses more quotes and has a specific idea in mind (the fragility of friendships that we value) which is what you should be striving for.There are a couple of things that you should be focusing on:
- More close analysis of the language: This is what separates Lit from English. You need to always be identifying how the rhythm, rhyming, alliteration etc contribute towards the meaning of the text. It is not enough to just state that these techniques exist, you need to analyse their effect and why the author chooses to use them
- More acknowledgement of Winton as the author of the text: how is the text influenced by Winton's values and society. Maybe about how this story is distinctly Australian
- Less focus on broad themes such as 'belonging', especially in the topic sentences. I notice that you narrow down in your body paragraphs, but you want to be immediately starting with the a specific idea rather than a broad theme.
- Cut out storytelling, this adds little to the analysis and anyone who has read the book (your teacher and examiners) will find storytelling redundant
If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Sorry if this sounded a bit harsh since I'm being quite nitpicky in some areas.
hey
thankyou soooo much for all this editing! just a question as i'm reading through it...i still doing quite understand what to do with the introduction...The story is set in Albany, WA however the whole story is about a friendship and the narrator leaving albany. it is known that Tim Winton always thought of albany as his home town and he loved it...however the narrator is completely the opposite in the sense that he wants to leave.
Iv'e never used quotes before in an introduction- i was wandering how to do it without making it sound like the 'body paragraphs with less evidence'
Defined by absence - ‘shade without form’, ‘shade without colour’ - the ‘hollow men’ of Eliot’s modern 20th century world are dislocated from historical knowledge and unable to attain surety in the present. Oscillating between the banal rituals of ‘a game of chess’ and a paralytic interiority, these isolated poetic subjects have found their voices increasingly ‘quiet’, futile in a physically depraved world where poetic and social communication has ‘withered’ away. Only in the third passage do these fractured voices coalesce, forced to acknowledge a collective despair that characterises the poet at his most pessimistic and bleak.
Your views and values statement doesn't necessarily have to be about the place itself, but maybe about wider Australian youth and society, or youth dissatisfaction. It can also be about what Winton himself values in life expressed through his writing.
As for the quotes part I'm going to use one of my Introductions as an example
Here the quotes are less about analysis, but they are embedded in my sentences.
For example: "where poetic and social communication has ‘withered’ away"
Notice how instead of withered I could have used many other words such as faded or worn or any other synonym. However, the word withered actually appears in Eliot's poem, so I can use it as a quote. I don't actually analyse this quote as this is an introduction, however it shows a close knowledge of the text and that I'm following the language and ideas of the text itself.
The views and values part can be seen in these phrases:
'Eliot’s modern 20th century world'
'that characterises the poet at his most pessimistic and bleak'
Just some acknowledgement of the context / values will make your essay more sophisticated. It also shows you acknowledging the text as not a standalone text but a product of an author, time period and location.
Hey
this is an essay i wrote on A Doll's house
the question was: Discourses evident within a text help to identify the social, historical, and/or cultural conditions in which a literately work is produced. Discuss with reference to A Doll’s House
we were also supposed to refer to feminism and marxism...
A recurring theme amongst Ibsen’s plays includes the social issue discussing the oppression of women by conventions limiting them to a domesticated life. This theme recurs amongst a range of Ibsen’s plays; including A doll’s house. Throughout the drama, Ibsen presents a reflection of the world around him, allowing for a universal approach to the text, while exploring the lives of character’s, whom are trapped by social constraints. Ibsen explores key aspects of society including Feminism and Marxism and the effect the deprivation of these can have upon individuals. A Dolls House represented the contextual issues of Norwegian society in the era of the plays publication; 1880s. Through the characteristics of control and deception and the analysis of discourse, Ibsen in a way scrutinizes the effects of social, and cultural conditions in society, declaring through I famous quote, ‘I am in revolt of against the age- old lie that the majority is always right’
The play débuted at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark on the 21st of December 1879, two weeks after it’s first publication. At the time of publication the play elicited much debate centered around the abrupt deviation from cultural and social stereotypes of it’s characters; in particular of the play’s protagonist; Nora. This debate was not limited wholly within Norwegian society, but was a universal occurrence. Subsequently, Ibsen was forced to provide an alternate ending by management in Germany, such that even the actor refused to play a woman who would not ‘want to see her children ’ and ‘cant stay here with you (her husband) any longer’. This path of thinking was an abrupt and shocking deviation from societies attitudes and values at the time. Harley Granville-Barker commented upon the play when it finally reached the London stage, stating, ‘the most dramatic even of the decade’. As it seemed, Nora’s abrupt departure from her doll’s house affected the mind of both sexes. The idea of feminism explores the notion of equality amongst sexes, in all of intellectual, economic and political forms. At the time of publication, it would have been an idea that highlights the degrading view of women, and their portrayal as the ‘other, of less significance’, in real world and literature. Since the 19th century, this focus has been shifted more away from women to a movement towards covering the degradation of both sexes equally. Prior to late 1800s, Norwegian society reflected it’s patriarchal stance through the subjugation of women. These restrictions were reflected alongside the reception of Nora’s actions by Mrs. Linde, ‘a wife can’t borrow money without her husband’s consent’. Alongside laws banning women from taking loans, women were also unable to file for divorce or vote. Exceptions to these laws were only permissible if the woman was acting under her male caretaker’s permission. Women were considered careless and incapable and thus dissolved of any power. Due to this, they were expected to stay home, urged by the stigmatization often subjected upon those who chose to deviate from society’s imposed restrictions. Ibsen further explores this aspect through Nora’s dialogue ‘I passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours (her husbands)’, illuminating the extent of the extreme patriarchy amongst society at the time. Ibsen powerfully highlight’s this idea, through Helmer’s declaration that women, in that society, were given one role, to be, ‘first and foremost, you are a wife and a mother’. It was not until 1888 that a law was passed, ending the authority of the husband over the wife. Ibsen’s intent upon the portrayal of women through ‘A Doll’s house’ was clear through some notes he had made, where he clearly highlighted the anomalous position of women in the prevailing patriarchal society, ‘A women (he wrote) cannot be herself in contemporary society; it is an exclusively male society with laws drafted by men, and with counsel judges who judge feminine conduct from the male point of view’*. In closing the door on her husband and children, Nora paved the way for the women’s movement, through her opposition of the expected norms in society.
Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis, an idea that ‘actions and human institutions are economically determined, that the class struggle is the basic agency of historical change’*2 The play opens on a scene where Nora enters with a bare Christmas tree, carrying a number of parcels and the proceeding discourse becomes evidence of Nora’s submission to commercialism, ‘Hide the Christmas tree away carefully, Helene. The children mustn’t see it till this evening when it is decorated’. Although a minor action, through a Marxist lens the need to dress the tree can be associated symbolically with commercialism, presenting Nora as one who is being forced to submit to socioeconomic standards. This Nora further exemplifies through her quote, ‘There’s a crown. Keep the change’. Though it is openly discussed between Nora and her husband that ‘this is the first Christmas they haven’t had to go carefully’ and implied that the family has had money issues in the past, Nora gives the money to the Porter and doesn’t ask for change. This is perhaps the first hint in the play societal thinking, during that era. Through this quote, Nora’s deludes the Porter of the low financial position of her family and gives the illusion that they are in a better condition than they actually are. This ornamentation of one’s socioeconomic status and an exemplification of the importance of it, is an everlasting theme amongst literature and subsequently, a reflection of society. According to this notion of Marxism, Nora has become overwhelmed by her surroundings to the extent that she feels no option but to submit to the patriarchal society.
Through-out the majority of the play Nora is portrayed as the subservient wife, ready to propitiate her husband, believing him the ‘head of the household’ and her caretaker. Ibsen portrays this social norm through her dialogue, ‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’. Though through the surrounding conversation by Helmer, ‘All right then! It’s really just my little joke’, and ‘I know that’, it can be deduced that she is saying this out of love, this phrase is a striking representation of society at the time. Ibsen creates a presentation of women as being unable to dream, let alone act upon thoughts that would potentially be against the wishes of their male counterparts; highlighting upon the extent of subjugation evident amongst society towards women, such that even ‘her’ dreams are being controlled and fine-lined to fit inside the boundaries of a patriarchal society. However it is not only Nora’s dialogue that becomes a reminder of a woman’s ‘place’, but also the dialogue of her husband, Helmer. Helmer has opted to utilize morality and honesty in order to achieve his success, both of which have been to some extent fruitful to him and thus, he is portrayed as the ‘pillar of society’. However, included in this pillar is the acceptance of Helmer’s superiority over Nora, an idea Helmer exercises through the way in which he addresses his wife. In the very first page of the play, he addresses Nora, ‘my little sky-lark chirping’ and in the proceeding pages, ‘my little squirrel frisking’ and ‘my pretty little pet’. Upon analysis of these nicknames it is evident of their substandard connotation. In all, he refers to her as an animal, substantiating society’s view of women as the ‘lesser’. Ibsen artfully couples each animal name with a verb to allow Helmer to accentuate his superiority over Nora. The extent of this superiority is realized to audiences later when Nora herself begins calling herself ‘it’; ‘we call it a spendthrift’. This discourse perhaps takes another level of subjugation, through likening Nora, a woman, with an inanimate object that has no feelings or personal thoughts. Through the symbolism of referring Nora to an object, Ibsen’s society is articulately reflected, through the positioning of women to be ‘conscious-less’. More astounding than this is the ease at which Nora refers to herself as an ‘it’, highlighting that this discourse would have been a common occurrence. Thus, through this, Helmer surreptitiously reminds Nora of her place as the ‘working wife’ and the ‘sacrificer’, so that when the time comes Helmer is in the domineering position to give his wife everything, except that which society at the time restricted him from giving; ‘Helmer: I would gladly work night and day for you. Nora- bear sorrow and want for your sake. But no …………man would sacrifice his honor for the.one he loves.
Nora: It is a thing hundreds of thousands of women have done.”
Ibsen enhances the lack of feminism through careful use of discourse to portray certain character traits amongst his characters that, at the era of production would have been viewed as flaws and a retardation from societal norms. To cope with the behavioral boundaries imposed from society, certain character’s placed strategies in which to cope, one of these strategies being ‘control’. Examples of character’s attempting to control their environment are a frequent occurrence throughout the play, catalyzed primarily by their subjugation and victimization. Though Nora openly stated, ‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’, as the play progresses she disregards Helmer’s wishes on spending less money, eating sweets and paying for her husband’s treatment. Perhaps the primary example of Nora’s need to control her environment is the reason she takes her husband on holiday. Nora believed that Helmer was in dire need of a vacation, despite Helmer making it clear that he didn’t want to go, ‘(when Nora presented the idea), ‘being frivolous, that it was his duty as a husband not to give in to all the whims and fancies of mine’. Despite this reluctance on Helmer’s part, decides to hide the true extent of her husband’s illness from him and insists on taking him, ‘It was necessary he should have no idea what a dangerous condition he was in. It was to me that the doctors came and said that his life was in danger, and that the only thing to save him was to live in the south. Do you suppose I didn't try, first of all, to get what I wanted as if it were for myself?’ This excerpt portrays Nora’s nature, and the resultant effect of her suppression. Nora, in taking a loan out, was ready to ‘take the law into her own hands’ and becoming a ‘hypocrite, a liar, and worse than that, a criminal! Mr’s Linde is also shocked when she hears of Nora’s actions;
‘Mrs Linde: Listen, Nora, are you sure you haven’t done something rash?
Nora: Is it rash to save your husband’s life?
Mrs Linde: I think it’s rash if you do it without his knowledge’
It is evident through discourse, that Nora is still oblivious to the illegality of her actions and has little comprehension of the magnitude of misfortune she may be in. Conversely, the exchange becomes an illumination of Nora’s frame of thinking; for her, any method she may take to reach a particular end point is justified if the desired end point ensues. Her approach to this dilemma is to control the situation, through bypassing any consultation that may result in an idea contradictory to her’s. Her statement, ‘‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’ become seemingly more and more implausible as the play progresses. Despite Nora’s autarchic actions, she remains un-punished. This however, changes following Nora’s fraudulent actions and her subsequent treatment of Krogstad, which prompts him to write a letter to Helmer with the intention of disclosing his wife’s actions. It is at this stage another one of Nora’s controlled situation’s emerges and Nora, out of desperation searches for ways to prevent Hemler from opening the letterbox and learning of her secret. Ibsen portrays the ghastly effects of the subjugation upon women, through an exploration of the side-effect of deception. Nora, when practicing her dance turns the situation to her advantage, by deterring her husband from checking the letter-box were Krogstad had placed the letter;
‘Nora: What are you going to do there?
Helmer: Only see if any letters have come.
Nora: No, no! Don’t do that, Torvald!
Helmer: Why not?
Nora: Torvald, please don't. There aren’t any.
Helmer: Just let me see’
Subsequently, Nora successfully gains her husband’s attention and she begins to dance so wildly that he has to tell her, ‘Not so Fast! Not so Fast!’ and ‘Not so wild, Nora!’ Perhaps the most important discourse Ibsen utilises to present the desperation of Nora and her subsequent need to control, is portrayed through, ‘Nora you are dancing as if your life depended on it’, to which she replies, ‘it does’. This discourse accurately portrays the position of women amongst society at the time, and more importantly, the position of the wife. The negative consequences of the patriarchal society become evident as Nora finds that her ‘life depended’ upon keeping her actions a secret and ensuring her husband never discovers her mistake, and thus devises a stratagem to cover-up the action, reflecting the austere expectations for women to fit the role of the innocent and be the perfect wife, to the extent that Nora described it as a matter of life. Subjecting woman to these extreme conditions for large interludes can be described as the cause of Nora’s controlling tendencies. From a post-feministic view-point is can be concluded that Ibsen, through the use of discourse presented his society with a reflection of itself, with the intention of illustrating the resultant effects of this severe subjugation, and thus, in doing so, Ibsen not only provides a description of society at the time, but also explores the resultant future effects of the hierarchal society; in which women were enforced to conceive severe processes to cope.
Deception is a peculiarity often associated profoundly to control, and thus becomes another subterfuge through which Ibsen echoes societal values. Ibsen articulately incorporates deception within A Doll’s house, to create a replication of the deleterious features of society and the coping mechanism’s women in the 19th century adopted as a means of survival. This innate characteristic of deception is evident within the opening of the play and becomes the first test of Nora’s honesty; a test that she fails. Helmer repeatedly makes it clear that he doesn’t approve of Nora ‘popping into the confectioner’s’. Upon Nora’s return Helmer immediately questions her as to if she ‘forgot herself in town?’ and ‘Hasn’t miss sweet-tooth been breaking rules in town today?’ Nora immediately denies this, ‘no I assure you Trovold’ despite audiences later observing that she ‘takes the bag out of her hand’, and offers them to Dr. Rank, stating, ‘what about a little macaroon?’ To this, even the doctor questions her, ‘I thought they (referring to the mararoons) were forbidden here’. Through this discourse, Ibsen divulges that after eight years of marriage in a patriarchal society, Nora has developed strategies in which to be able to follow her likes and dislikes, while concurrently keeping her husband happy. This was a direct portrayal of 19th century Norwegian society, where women were expected to give up many of their personal preferences in order to please their husbands. Though it may be possible to overlook the ‘little white lies’, some of Nora’s deception, however, has larger consequences. Another example of Nora’s deception appears again in an interaction between Helmer;
‘Helmer; Do you remember last Christmas? Three whole weeks beforehand you shut yourself up every evening till after midnight making flowers for the Christmas tree and all the other splendid things you wanted to surprise us with. Ugh, I never felt so bored in all my life.
Nora: I wasn’t the least bit bored.
Helmer (smiling). But it turned a bit of an anticlimax, Nora.’
The audience then learns the truth about what Nora was actually doing when she ‘shut yourself up every evening’ a few passages later through her conversation with her friend Mrs. Linde, ‘Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening until quite late at night’ . Despite Nora’s justification for these lies to be of a good nature, her deceptive nature is still evident. One deceptive act translates into another, and Nora’s nature changes completely as she attempts to cope with the cultural and social values of society. The danger of Nora’s deception, however, is not fully recognized until another conversation with Mr’s. Linde when she asks, ‘Won’t you ever tell him?’, to which Nora replies, ‘perhaps one day’ and ‘Then it might be a good idea to have something up my sleeve’. It is evident through this dialogue that Nora feels no guilt or humiliation in the lengths she goes to, to achieve her way. Thus, through discourse, Ibsen once again proves Nora’s adaptability to her environment; she has learned to survive and control a situation, from the position of the beleaguered and subservient wife.
Throughout the progression of the play, Nora’s little lies continue and audiences are given the impression that she may be habitual liar, a trait even Helmer discovers;
Helmer: Has anyone been here?
Nora: Here? No.
Helmer: That’s funny. I saw Krogstad leaving the house.
Nora: Really? Yes, that’s right, Krogstad was here for a minute.
It becomes evident through this discourse, that Nora has made a routine of lying, to a magnitude that she doesn’t need to think twice on lying to serve her own purpose, even to those closest to her. This demeanor endures throughout the play, climaxing in Act 3, at what time Nora makes the final assertion of her departure. Though this scene brought on enthusiastic welcome from many feminists throughout time, a deeper look, indicates the real dark reason of the ‘doll’s’ abrupt departure from her house. The survival strategies Nora originally employed have evidently failed her, however, instead of changing her ways, Nora adapts to her new situation through careful modification of her strategies. She does this through the monopolisation of discourse and an obstinate repudiation to discuss the reasons for her departure. Nora then departs from her untenable situation, declaring; ‘I must stand on my own two feet if I'm to get to know myself and the world outside. That's why I can't stay here with you any longer.’ Thus, through an articulate utilization of discourse, Ibsen presents the 19th century woman as immature and deceitful, however also displays that as time passes she becomes more able to decide what it best for her. Ibsen reveals and discusses the social and cultural position of women in his context and the innate resultant instinct of survival some developed in order to achieve some happiness in the strictly patriarchal society. This progression of Nora, developing from the submissive wife who, on the surface, obeyed her husbands ‘commands’, to the emergence on a ‘new Nora’; a women who decided to place herself first, is a direct symbolism of Ibsen’s society through the exploration of the concept of feminism and it’s growth some decades proceeding A Doll’s House.
Ibsen corroborates, through the accentuation of discourse, that Norwegian society during the 19th century was manifested by a severe patriarchal stance. Ibsen highlight’s the effects of this frame of thinking through the deviation of ‘stereotypical’ behaviors in relation to gender, namely, Nora’s infatuation with control and deceit to escape the entrapment and subjugation placed heavily upon females. A Dolls House is a reflection of the social and cultural norms as it deals with prominent issues that occurred during 19th century; discussing not only society’s conditions but also the resultant effects upon the subjugated.
I don't mean to be rude, but this isn't a close analysis essay. The people over here on the VCE Lit board won't be able to give you the help you need because we won't be 100% familiar with the criteria on which you'll be marked. Perhaps consider visiting the WA board? They'll be able to give you more accurate and relevant feedback imo.All good - I told mq to post it here as opposed to PMing me for feedback. And yeah, this is way more extensive than what VCE Lit. kids will have to do, so though it's kind of similar to the Alternate Views SAC, this isn't wholly relevant to anyone studying A Doll's House in VCE. But the WA boards can be hard to find and are basically dead (for now.) One day ATAR Notes will conquer all of the states and we'll have resources that span this whole continent. Except Queensland. They know what they did -.-
Discourses evident within a text help to identify the social, historical, and/or cultural conditions in which a literary work is produced. Discuss with reference to A Doll’s House.A lot of this is a bit nit-picky since it's hard to make really broad comments, but the three most important things to work on:
A recurringthemedon't use the word theme - it sounds clunky. Refer to the 'concerns' of a text if you have to, or just start talking about that idea - there's no need to flag something as 'one of the themes in the book.' amongst Ibsen’s plays includes careful with plurality - 'A theme includes the issue of...' - probably best to rewrite this intro sentence so it's a bit clearer i.e. 'Throughout ADH, Ibsen highlights the oppression of women by...' the social issue discussing the oppression of women by conventions limiting them to a domesticated life.This theme recurs amongst a range of Ibsen’s plays; including A doll’s house.This is just repeating what you've already said. Throughout thedrama'play' or 'text' would be more conventional, Ibsen presents a reflection of the world around him, allowing for a universal approach to the text, while exploring the lives of character’s no apostrophe needed here, whomare trapped by social constraints. linking word? Ibsen explores key aspects of society including Feminism and Marxism and the effect the deprivation of these can have upon individuals. A Dolls House represented the contextual issues of Norwegian society in the era of the plays publication; 1880s. Through the characteristics I'm not sure 'control' and 'analysis of discourse' are both 'characteristics' in the same sense - what are you trying to say here? of control and deception and the analysis of discourse, Ibsen in a way scrutinizes the effects of social, and cultural conditions in society, declaringthrough I famous quotehimself to be "in revolt against the age-old lie...",‘I am in revolt of against the age- old liethat the majority is always right’ Nice concluding line, but most of these sentences don't really flow into one another. Consider using some 'Furthermore...'s and 'The text also showcases...'s to smooth things along.
The play débuted at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark on the 21st of December 1879, two weeks after it’s first publication. At the time of publication the play elicited much debate centered around the abrupt deviation from cultural and social stereotypes of it’s characters; in particular of the play’s protagonist; Nora. Okay, based on my understanding this would be a bit too zoomed out from the text and could easily be condensed to a sentence or less, but if you're teacher's fine with this then don't worry. I tend to advocate for T.S.s that start from the text and then build out in Lit. but that's my bias.This debate was not limited wholly within Norwegian society, but was a universal occurrence.'Universal' might be a bit of a stretch :P Subsequently, Ibsen was forced to provide an alternate ending by management word check - he didn't really have a 'manager' in Germany, such that even the actor refused to play a woman who would not ‘want to see her children ’ and ‘cant stay here with you (her husband) any longer’. When modifying quotes, you should use [square brackets] and just replace information that you don't need, so this should be: "can't say here with [her husband] any longer." This path of thinking which path? You ended the previous sentence talking about the attitude of actresses, but aren't you talking about Ibsen's Nora's attitudes now? Make your focus clear! was an abrupt and shocking deviation from societies' apostrophe needed here since it's possessive attitudes and values at the time. Harley Granville-Barker commented upon the play when it finally reached the London stage,stating,calling it ‘the most dramatic event of the decade’. As it seemed, Nora’s abrupt departure from her doll’s house explain this - what is her 'doll's house' in the play? affected the mind of both sexes. The idea of feminism explores the notion of equality amongst sexes, in all of intellectual, economic and political forms. At the time of publication, it would have been an idea that highlights the degrading view of women, and their portrayal as the ‘other, of less significance’, in real world and literature. Since the 19th century, this focus has been shifted more away from women to a movement towards covering the degradation of both sexes equally. Prior to late 1800s, Norwegian society reflected it’s patriarchal stance through the subjugation of women. You need to be a lot more concise and orderly when trying to convey these ideas. First, think about the basic point you're trying to get across since there seems to be a bit of irrelevant information here (i.e. modern feminism concerning itself with both genders - true, but not wholly helpful for this essay). Next, express this in the simplest way possible, preferably in a sentence or less, linking it to the text. You shouldn't need a whole section of your paragraph dedicated to explaining what feminist values are. These restrictions were reflected alongside the reception of Nora’s actions by Mrs. Linde, ‘a wife can’t borrow money without her husband’s consent’. try to integrate this quote within your sentence. Alongside laws banning women from taking loans, women were also unable to file for divorce or vote. Exceptions to these laws were only permissible if the woman was acting under her male caretaker’s permission. Women were considered careless and incapable and thus dissolved of any power. Due to this, they were expected to stay home, urged by the stigmatization often subjected upon those who chose to deviate from society’s imposed restrictions. This is a little better, but the sentences still aren't really flowing together. Plus, the fact that many are around the same length can make your writing seem a bit laboured (see: this) Ibsen further explores this aspect through Nora’s dialogue ‘I passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours (her husbands)’, integrate this quote so it fits your sentence illuminating the extent of the extreme patriarchy amongst society at the time. How does this evidence demonstrate this idea? Ibsen powerfully highlight’s no apostrophe this idea, through Helmer’s declaration that women, in that society, were given one role, to be, ‘first and foremost,youare a wife and a mother’. Slight overuse of commas in that last sentence, but quote integration is better. It was not until 1888 that a law was passed, ending the authority of the husband over the wife. Is this really useful to your discussion? If so, explain how it is useful. Right now, it kind of sticks out a bit as being irrelevant to the sentences on either side of it. Ibsen’s intent upon the portrayal expression is a little clunky of women through ‘A Doll’s house’ was clear through some notes he had made, where he clearly highlighted the anomalous position of women in the prevailing patriarchal society, ‘A women (he wrote) cannot be herself in contemporary society; it is an exclusively male society with laws drafted by men, and with counsel judges who judge feminine conduct from the male point of view’* I'm assuming the asterisk is for a citation? Regardless, this quote needs to be integrated or possibly paraphrased a bit to give you a chance to expand on this idea. Don't let Ibsen do the talking for you! In closing the door on her husband and children, Nora paved the way for the women’s movement, through her opposition of the expected norms in society. Good point, but don't end your paragraph with close textual analysis - this is where you're meant to zoom out and consider overall ideas/interpretations.
^Link?-->Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis, and an idea that ‘actions and human institutions are economically determined, that the class struggle is the basic agency of historical change’*2 <--Link?--> The play opens on a scene where Nora enters with a bare Christmas tree, carrying a number of parcels and the proceeding discourse becomes evidence of Nora’s submission to commercialism, ‘Hide the Christmas tree away carefully, Helene. The children mustn’t see it till this evening when it is decorated’. integrate Although a minor action, through a Marxist lens the need to dress the tree can be associated symbolically with commercialism, How so? You can't just say X is a symbolic representation of Y without backing up your assertion presenting Nora as one who is being forced to submit to socioeconomic standards. This Nora further exemplifies through her quote, ‘There’s a crown. Keep the change’. What does this mean? How is this quote supporting your interpretation? Though it is openly discussed between Nora and her husband that ‘this is the first Christmas they haven’t had to go carefully’ GOOD! THIS IS WELL INTEGRATED! and implied that the family has had money issues in the past, Nora gives the money to the Porter and doesn’t ask for change. This is perhaps the first hint in the play societal thinking, during that era. Are there words missing from this sentence? I'm not sure what your point is/ Through this quote, Nora’s deludes the Porter of the low financial position of her family and gives the illusion that they are in a better condition than they actually are. This ornamentation word check of one’s socioeconomic status and an exemplification of the importance of it, is an everlasting theme amongst literature and subsequently, a reflection of society. Try and focus on what Ibsen is suggesting rather than making these generalised statements about the 'themes' of 'literature' as a whole. According to this notion of Marxism, Nora has become overwhelmed by her surroundings to the extent that she feels no option but to submit to the patriarchal society. How is this a demonstration of Marxist ideals? What's the connection between Marxism and Nora feeling forced to submit to the patriarchy?
Through-out the majority of the play Nora is portrayed as the subservient wife, ready to propitiate her husband, believing him the ‘head of the household’ and her caretaker. Excellent T.S. Ibsen portrays this social norm through her dialogue, ‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’. Needs integration Though through the surrounding conversation by Helmer, ‘All right then! It’s really just my little joke’, and ‘I know that’, needs integration it can be deduced that she is saying this out of love,this phrase is a striking representation of society at the time.Ibsen creates a presentation of women as being unable to dream, let alone act upon thoughts that would potentially be against the wishes of their male counterparts; highlightinguponthe extent of subjugation evident amongst society towards women, such that even ‘her’ dreams are being controlled and fine-lined word check to fit inside the boundaries of a patriarchal society. Aside from some minor expression issues, this is an awesome sentence! :) However it is not only Nora’s dialogue that becomes a reminder of a woman’s ‘place’, but also the dialogue of her husband, Helmer. Helmer has opted to utilize morality expression is a bit clunky and honesty in order to achieve his success, both of which have been to some extent fruitful to him and thus, he is portrayed as the ‘pillar of society’. Wait, so, he's moral and honest --> he achieves success --> he's a pillar of society? How did we get to that last step?? However, included in this pillar ??? is the acceptance of Helmer’s superiority over Nora, an idea Helmer exercises through the way in which he addresses his wife. In the very first page of the play, he addresses Nora as his "little sky-lark chirping," (<-- integrate quotes like this so you don't have to use the word "my" in any of the following statements)‘my little sky-lark chirping’and in the proceeding pages, ‘my little squirrel frisking’ and ‘my pretty little pet’.Upon analysis of these nicknames it is evident of their substandard connotation.In all, he refers to her as an animal, substantiating society’s view of women as the ‘lesser’. Ibsen artfully couples each animal name with a verb to allow Helmer to accentuate his superiority over Nora. How does the use of verbs lead to this interpretation? The extent of this superiority is realized to audiences later when Nora herself begins calling herself ‘it’; ‘we call it a spendthrift’. Is she really referring to herself here? I don't have the play with me but I'm not sure that's what this quote means. This discourse perhaps takes another level of subjugation, through likening Nora, a woman, with an inanimate object that has no feelings or personal thoughts. Through the symbolism of referring Noratoas an object, Ibsen’s society is articulately reflected, through the positioning of women to be ‘conscious-less’. Good, but careful with your use of commas. More astounding than this is the easeatwith which Nora refers to herself as an ‘it’, highlighting that this discourse would have been a common occurrence. Thus, through this, Helmer surreptitiously reminds Nora of her place as the ‘working wife’ and the ‘sacrificer’, so that when the time comes Helmer is in the domineering position to give his wife everything, except that which society at the time restricted him from giving;
"Helmer: I would gladly work night and day for you. Nora- bear sorrow and want for your sake. But no …………man would sacrifice his honor for the one he loves.
Nora: It is a thing hundreds of thousands of women have done.” Don't end a paragraph with a quote you haven't analysed.
Ibsen enhances the lack of feminism not sure this is accurate. Unless you're saying he's criticuing the lack of feminist equality in society? The text doesn't really enhance the lack of deminism though through careful use of discourse to portray certain character traits amongst his characters that, at the era of production would have been viewed as flaws and a retardation from societal norms. To cope with the behavioral boundaries imposed from society, certain character’s no apostrophe placed strategies in which to cope, ? one of these strategies being ‘control’. Examples of character’sno apostrophe attempting to control their environment are a frequent occurrence throughout the play, catalyzed primarily by their subjugation and victimization. Though Nora openly stated, ‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’, as the play progresses she disregards Helmer’s wishes on spending less money, eating sweets and paying for her husband’s treatment. expression Perhaps the primary example of Nora’s need to control her environment is the reason she takes her husband on holiday. Nora believed that Helmer was in dire need of a vacation, despite Helmer making it clear that he didn’t want to go, ‘(when Nora presented the idea), just paraphrase this information and only quote what you need ‘being frivolous, that it was his duty as a husband not to give in to all the whims and fancies of mine’. Despite this reluctance on Helmer’s part, who? decides to hide the true extent of her husband’s illness from him and insists on taking him, ‘It was necessary he should have no idea what a dangerous condition he was in. It was to me that the doctors came and said that his life was in danger, and that the only thing to save him was to live in the south. Do you suppose I didn't try, first of all, to get what I wanted as if it were for myself?’ This needs integrating, and it's a bit too long at the moment - find the part of this quote that's supporting your point and just hone in on that. This excerpt portrays Nora’s nature, but what aspects of her nature does it portray, and how does it portray them? and the resultant effect of her suppression. Nora, in taking a loan out, was ready to ‘take the law into her own hands’ and becoming a ‘hypocrite, a liar, and worse than that, a criminal! Mr’s Linde is also shocked when she hears of Nora’s actions;
"Mrs Linde: Listen, Nora, are you sure you haven’t done something rash?
Nora: Is it rash to save your husband’s life?
Mrs Linde: I think it’s rash if you do it without his knowledge"
Perhaps it's a requirement/recommendation that you quote like this, but I think you could easily cherry-pick the important words here and just include them in your analysis rather than just chucking three whole lines of dialogue in the middle of your essay
It is evident through discourse, that Nora is still oblivious to the illegality of her actions and has little comprehension of the magnitude of misfortune she may be in. Expression. You can't be 'in misfortune' Conversely, the exchange becomes an illumination of Nora’s frame of thinking; for her, any method she may take to reach a particular end point is justified if she reaches the desired end pointensuesGood!. Her approach to this dilemma is to control the situation, through bypassing any consultation that may result in an idea contradictory to her’s. No apostrophe Her statement, ‘‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’ become seemingly more and more implausible as the play progresses. This is an awesome statement, but you haven't really unpacked it here, so it feels a little underdeveloped being stuck at the end of a paragraph.
Despite Nora’s autarchic actions, she remains un-punished one word; no hyphen. This however, changes following Nora’s fraudulent actions and her subsequent treatment of Krogstad, which prompts him to write a letter to Helmer with the intention of disclosing his wife’s actions. It is at this stage another one of Nora’s controlled situation’s no apostrophe emerges and Nora, out of desperationneed a comma here searches for ways to prevent Hemler from opening the letterbox and learning of her secret. Ibsen portrays the ghastly effects of the subjugation upon women, through an exploration of the side-effect of deception. Nora, when practicing her dance need a comma here turns the situation to her advantage, no comma here by deterring her husband from checking the letter-box were Krogstad had placed the letter;
"Nora: What are you going to do there?
Helmer: Only see if any letters have come.
Nora: No, no! Don’t do that, Torvald!
Helmer: Why not?
Nora: Torvald, please don't. There aren’t any.
Helmer: Just let me see."
See above re: quoting. What's important here? You haven't been specific enough about the evidence you're dealing with.
Subsequently, Nora successfully gains her husband’s attention and she begins to dance so wildly that he has to tell her, ‘Not so Fast! Not so Fast!’ and ‘Not so wild, Nora!’ Perhaps the most important discourse Ibsen utilises to present the desperation of Nora and her subsequent need to control, is portrayed through, no commas here ‘Nora you are dancing as if your life depended on it’, to which she replies, ‘it does’. This discourse accurately portrays the position of women amongst society at the time, and more importantly, the position of the wife. The negative consequences of the patriarchal society become evident as Nora finds that her ‘life depended’ upon keeping her actions a secret and ensuring her husband never discovers her mistake, and thus devises a stratagem to cover-up the action, reflecting the austere expectations for women to fit the role of the innocent and be the perfect wife, to the extent that Nora described it as a matter of life. Good; sentence structure is a little bit messy, but the analysis is much clearer. Subjecting woman to these extreme conditions for large interludes can be described as the cause of Nora’s controlling tendencies. From a post-feministic view-point is can be concluded that Ibsen, through the use of discourse presented his society with a reflection of itself, ??? with the intention of illustrating the resultant effects of this severe subjugation, and thus, in doing so, Ibsen not only provides a description of society at the time, but also explores the resultant future effects repetition of the hierarchal society; no semicolon here in which women were enforced to conceive severe processes to cope.
Deception is a peculiarity often associatedprofoundly towith control, and thus starting to overuse this as a linking word; try and vary it with 'therefore'/ 'hence' etc. becomes another subterfuge through which Ibsen echoes societal values. Ibsenarticulatelyincorporates deception within A Doll’s house,make sure you properly capitalise the whole thing and use 'single quote marks' when writing the title to create a replication of the deleterious features of society and the coping mechanism’s women in the 19th century adopted as a means of survival. This innate characteristic of deception is evident within the opening of the play and becomes the first test of Nora’s honesty; a test that she fails. Helmer repeatedly makes it clear that he doesn’t approve of Nora ‘popping into the confectioner’s’. Upon Nora’s return Helmer immediately questions her as to if she ‘forgot herself in town?’ and ‘Hasn’t miss sweet-tooth been breaking rules in town today?’ Nora immediately denies this, ‘no I assure you Trovold’ integration despite audiences later observing that she ‘takes the bag out of her hand’, and offers them to Dr. Rank, stating, ‘what about a little macaroon?’ To this, even the doctor questions her, ‘I thought they (referring to the mararoons) were forbidden here’ integration. Through this discourse, Ibsen divulges that after eight years of marriage in a patriarchal society, Nora has developed strategies in which to be able to follow her likes and dislikes, expression while concurrently keeping her husband happy.This was a direct portrayal of 19th century Norwegian society, where women were expected to give up many of their personal preferences in order to please their husbands.bit redundant
Though it may be possible to overlook the ‘little white lies’, some of Nora’s deception, however, has larger is there a more descriptive word you could use here? consequences. Another example of Nora’s deception appears again in an interaction between Helmer;
"Helmer; Do you remember last Christmas? Three whole weeks beforehand you shut yourself up every evening till after midnight making flowers for the Christmas tree and all the other splendid things you wanted to surprise us with. Ugh, I never felt so bored in all my life.
Nora: I wasn’t the least bit bored.
Helmer (smiling). But it turned a bit of an anticlimax, Nora."
The audience then learns the truth about what Nora was actually doing when she ‘shut yourself up every evening’ a few passages later through her conversation with her friend Mrs. Linde, ‘Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening until quite late at night’ integrate Despite Nora’s justification for these lies to be of a good nature, expression her deceptive nature is still evident. One deceptive act translates into another, and Nora’s nature changes completely as she attempts to cope with the cultural and social values of society. The danger of Nora’s deception, however, is not fully recognized until another conversation with Mr’s. Linde when she asks, ‘Won’t you ever tell him?’, to which Nora replies, ‘perhaps one day’ and ‘Then it might be a good idea to have something up my sleeve’. It is evident through this dialogue that Nora feels no guilt or humiliation in the lengths she goes to, to achieve her way. Thus,through discourse,no need to keep stressing this Ibsen once again proves Nora’s adaptability to her environment; she has learned to survive and control a situation, from the position of the beleaguered and subservient wife.
Throughout the progression of the play, Nora’s little lies continue and audiences are given the impression that she may be habitual liar, this doesn't really flow on from the previous discussion a trait even Helmer discovers;
"Helmer: Has anyone been here?
Nora: Here? No.
Helmer: That’s funny. I saw Krogstad leaving the house.
Nora: Really? Yes, that’s right, Krogstad was here for a minute."
It becomes evident through this discourse, that Nora has made a routine of lying, to a magnitude that she doesn’t need to think twice on lying to serve her own purpose, even to those closest to her. This demeanor endures throughout the play, climaxing in Act 3, atwhatwhich time Nora makes the final assertion of her departure. Though this scene brought on enthusiastic welcome from many feminists throughout time, a deeper look, indicates the real dark reason of the ‘doll’s’ abrupt departure from her house. The survival strategies Nora originally employed have evidently failed her, however, instead of changing her ways, Nora adapts to her new situation through careful modification of her strategies. She does this through the monopolisation of discourse and an obstinate repudiation to discuss the reasons for her departure lovely writing, but you need evidence for this. Stating this and then chucking some quotes in the next sentence isn't enough. Nora then departs from her untenable situation, declaring; ‘I must stand on my own two feet if I'm to get to know myself and the world outside. That's why I can't stay here with you any longer.’ Thus,through an articulate utilization of discourse,Ibsen presents the 19th century woman as immature and deceitful, however also displays that expression as time passes she becomes more able to decide what it best for her. Ibsen reveals and discusses the social and cultural position of women in his context and the innate resultant instinct expression of survival some developed in order to achieve some happiness in the strictly patriarchal society. This progression of Nora, developing from the submissive wife who, on the surface, obeyed her husbands ‘commands’, to the emergence on a ‘new Nora’; Okay, if you're arguing that she was only obeying her husband 'on the surface,' how much has she actually changed? Do you think her values were always there, or were they instilled through her suffering? You don't necessarily have to answer this here, but it's a really central question in ADH that might be worth exploring a women who decided to place herself first, is a direct symbolism word check of Ibsen’s society through the exploration of the concept of feminism and it’s growth some decades proceeding A Doll’s House.
Ibsen corroborates, word check through the accentuation of discourse, that Norwegian society during the 19th century was manifested by a severe patriarchal stance. Ibsen highlight’s no apostrophe the effects of this frame of thinking through the deviation of ‘stereotypical’ behaviors in relation to gender, namely, Nora’s infatuation with control and deceit to escape the entrapment and subjugation placed heavily upon females. A Doll's House is a reflection of the social and cultural norms so is it reinforcing social values, or challenging them? as it deals with prominent issues that occurred during 19th century; discussing not only society’s conditions but also the resultant effects upon the subjugated.
Winter: My Secret is at once a liberation, a revolt, and a rebellion. There is no formal structure, no regular rhyme or meter, all stanzas are of different lengths and are read with tonal variations; this feels a bit 'list-y,' and how do you know they're 'read w/o tone?' Is this an analysis of a spoken collection? the poem is intentionally deviant from any traditional framework. It is clear from the very first lines that the speaker’s “secret” is not only an idyllic ornament of her psyche, but a metaphorical symbol of the clandestine realm over which women can assert power, ownership and control in a patriarchal society. When infused with the speaker’s oscillating voice, the elusive, evasive and complex poetic form comes alive, as the “secret” comes to represent an ebullition, or awakening, of female autonomy some nice V&V statements here, though you could afford to make this intro a bit shorter and leave the grand conclusions about Rossetti's feminist messages until the end. Through a self-conscious attempt to place emphasis on the constructed nature of art, Rossetti reclaims power through poetry, exalting in the fictitious this is a bit of a departure from the focus of the rest of your discussion and imagined as a means of transcending her own subjugation in Victorian society.
The poem opens jarringly in media res, launching the reader not sure if your teacher cares about this, but you may need to use the term 'audience' here - that tends to be the convention for poetry, but nbd if you use 'readers,' especially if your teacher doesn't pull you up for it into a well-established relationship with the speaker. The forceful “no”stronglyengenders the feeling that the reader has probed the poetic voice for her secret; it is deliberately at odds with what a literary opening usuallyconnotesestablishes(?), that is, a point at which the writer begins to build emotional intimacy with the reader. A swift, lyrical descent into nursery-rhyme cadence follows immediately with the couplet “perhaps some day, who knows?/but not today; it froze, and blows, and snows”, <--careful with sentence flow here, there's a bit of a break--> the use of internal rhyme and assonance contributing to a sense of beguiling lyricism. The nursery rhyme-like try not to repeat this too much; consider what it is about the rhythm that's so lilting and nursery rhyme-like rhythm of the lines carries with it the very thing it describes—the “secret”—yet its lilting, songlike tone suggests it is of little importance; that the reader’s curiosity is compelled by means of this small and insignificant token offers a commentary on the “secret” power of art good! The absence of extrinsic references—to the external world and external events which have transpired— as in, because the poem is so insular? I'm not too sure what you're analysing here. What is the lack of extrinsic references replaced by? Intrinsic references? If so, how? is keenly felt as the intimate relationship between the speaker and reader is left unexplained. Rossetti instead, directs the reader’s attention to the capacity of art to provide its own set of enabling conditions. Submerged within the self-sufficing power of fictive scenarios, of creation and of created artefacts, Rossetti champions poetry as a medium through which the female poet can exert power over the reader, and in doing so, reclaim a fibre of her lost autonomy, as powerfully rendered in the repetition of the startling possessive pronoun: “mine” v nice para conclusion :)
This isn't a requirement, but a connection between paragraphs might be good here. A tonal change in stanza two is observable as the lines are jutted forth by a gathering momentum. One must pause at the violent—and almost onomatopoeic—consonantal sounds of “nipping” and “biting” as Rossetti reinforces the speaker’s need for a “shawl”, “veil”, “cloak” and “other wraps” by personifying the “day” with animalistic attributes. Indeed, the repeated articles of clothing herald the start of a long verbal striptease of the stanza love this ;), as the speaker enacts in harsh aural detail the implications of “ope[ning] to everyone who taps”; the stinging sibilance wrong word; sibilance is for 'hissing' fricative sounds like 's' 'z' and 'sh;' these sounds 't' and 'p' are plosive of “taps” giving this suggested sexual imagery a sense of startling violation. A torrent of repeated present participles—“bounding”, “surrounding”, “buffeting”, “astounding” – further expound upon this notion of sexual violation, framing it with a disconcerting sense of immediacy, assodoes the violent crack of the “k” in the aggressive verb “peck” great close analysis here. The “draught” that subsequently “come[s ] whistling thro’” is intrusive and disruptive, as emphasised aurally by the rhyme scheme, one which is scattered into further disarray and unpredictability. Trapped in a downward path of despair—one as difficult to resurface from as the enveloping vowel sounds of the internal rhyme scheme of “bounding”/”surrounding”/”astounding”—Rossetti powerfully reinforces the necessity of “wear[ing]” a “mask” for “warmth”. The connotations of comfort embedded in the languid vowel sounds of “warmth” offer a welcome reprieve to the hostile sibilance of “Russian snows”; <--should be a comma, not a semicolon here representing a reaffirmation of the speaker’s choice to “leave that truth untested still”. Indeed, it is through the speaker’s refusal to reveal herself—to unwrap and unmask despite “goodwill” – that Rossetti infuses the cold desolation of winter with a tendril of warmth—of protected female liberty. Really awesome paragraph! Only comment I'd make is that you centre the majority of your analysis on sounds and phonemes (which is impressive) but I could understand an assessor wanting you to mix it up a bit by linking this with some discussion of metaphors, connotations, imagery, etc. Again, this isn't a requirement, but it'd help make your analysis seem more holistic.
Almost as quickly as momentum is constructed, it is cut off in stanza three with the enjambment of “March”, extending time cartographically word check through the stanza. The previous, gruelling cold is no longer felt as the speaker transitions into the “expansive time” of spring; the lolling lethargy of “flowers” and “showers” suggesting increased potential for the speaker to divulge her secret. Yet, with the resurfacing of the hostile verb “peck”—providing a lexical link between this stanza and the last— don't overuse the hyphen; a comma would be fine here Rossetti tears open this landscape of deceptive beauty to reveal an underlying violent, sexual energy. Allusions to transience in “brief” and “wither” evoke a sense of instability that is mirrored in the speaker’s inconstant tone getting super fussy now, but what evidence is there of this tone? Many assessors would accept this, but others might pull you up on making this claim without evidenve to support you. In this sense, the speaker’s continued reluctance to divulge her secret—protracting the time in which she takes to do so expression is a little clunky here with continued enjambments of months—seems to stem from springtime’s ephemeral nature. Indeed, while April’s “rainbow-crowned showers” and May’s “flowers” may be beautiful and beguiling, they are passions the poetic voice is not tempted by since they are transient and unreliable; the “showers” do not last and the “flowers” can be destroyed by one “frost” V nice! In her rejection of May—with its connotations of fertility, marriage and love—and the “rainbow-crowned showers” of April—a synesthetic symbol is this synaesthetic? It just seems to involve sight/colour in this context(?) of the passion between men and women—Rossetti consciously ascribes her speaker to the freedom, protection and isolation of winter, over the transience of passion, love, beauty and spring really great, strong reading here
The last stanza begins with the toying, petulant “perhaps”, returning the reader to the playful, teasing tone of the first. The long, drawn out sounds of “languid” mimic the lazy indolence of a “summer day”, as the flood of synesthetic again, this isn't really an example of synasthesia; Rossetti is just talking about the sight of ripe fruit and the sound of birds singing. Synasthesia would be if she had said 'the fruit smells like happiness and the birds sing songs of pink and purple' imagery—of “golden fruit ripening to excess” and “drowsy birds sing[ing] less and less”—engulfs all senses. The lingering lethargy of these actions is embedded within the protracted phonetics what do you mean by this? of the stanza—“less”, “drowsy”, “excess”, “day”—as the reader transitions into the sensuous and new seasonal image of summertime. Yet, with the onslaught of caveats and provisos—“perhaps”, “when”, “and”, “if”, “and” no need to quote this twice if you'r listing like this, though incidentally I do like that you're collecting quotes in this fashion to forge connections across different lines—this inertia is undermined as Rossetti unveils a kind of revolutionary energy lying within the speaker. In her construction of a set of impossible-to-fulfil criteria—one deliberately as nebulous as the indefinite and evasive “not too much…nor too much” this quote would probably make more sense if you quoted the "sun" and "cloud" parts—the speaker once again asserts her autonomous spirit in the ownership of her secret. In this sense, the abrupt conclusion—oneagain, don't overuse the dashes as it tends to make the essay jarring to read if there are too many in a row which forgoes a sense of closure—preserves the rebelliousness of language, themes and characterisation try to refrain from this kind of listing, and steer away from the word 'themes' outright - a lot of Lit teachers hate it when students use it in essays. Try and identify which themes are relevant, or else just remove that reference within Rossetti’s self-sufficing artefact. Thus, while Keats’ Ode to a Nightingale and Ode to Autumn (alluded to in the first three lines) if you're going to use this allusion as part of your final conclusion, you should probably bring it up sooner in your essay. A reference at the start and the end would be a good way to tie things together, or you could just chuck this in a BP where it fits urges the reader to accept created beauty—whether imagined, or natural—Rossetti’s exemplification of the “secret” power of art is an intentionally riddling assertion of the form of escapism that is inherent in, and can be achieved through artistic perfection—what transcends all.
Hello, I just started trying to write some passage analysis things for practice (so it's not an actual essay, it's just like two paragraphs) and they're pretty bad but I was wondering if I could get some feedback on how to improve it?You wrote this well, and have some brilliant ideas, just watch phrasing at times and also your topic sentence and ending sentences. Also, expand a little more in places, and add some more evidence.
I found my own poems since I didn't know what to write on, and they're The End and the Beginning and Reality Demands by Wislawa Szymborska (they're really nice, I think!). :)
Whilst an idealistic vision of recovery from human conflict is lovingly Maybe lovingly isn't the best choice of words, what about laudably?painted in Reality Demands, Wislawa Szymborska sculpts an exceedingly sombre representation ofthis same concepta similar concept in The End and the Beginning. Solemnly stating ,Your phraseing is a little awkward here, what about Szymbrorska evokes a bitter melancholy within the reader, by solemnly stating, within the fragmented body of The End and the Beginning that occasionally ‘someone still unearths rusted-out arguments’ and carelessly tosses them ‘to the garbage pile’. Hereby making known that perhaps the increasing speed and carelessness with which war is regarded is not ideal.within the fragmented body of The End and the Beginning that occasionally ‘someone still unearths rusted-out arguments’ and carelessly tosses them ‘to the garbage pile’, Szymborska evokes a bitter melancholy within the reader, making known that perhaps the increasing speed and carelessness with which war is regarded is not ideal. As time progresses and ‘those who knew what was going on here’ shamefully give way to a generation of those who know ‘as little as nothing’, Szymborska regretfully propounds the increasing lack of knowledge as the cruel views of ‘corpse-filling wagons’ and ‘bloody rags’ fade from memory. With even the ‘grass’ overgrowing the ‘causes and effects’ of war, and thus giving birth to an overly romantic generation who, in ‘gazing at the clouds’ with a ‘blade of grass in (their mouths)’ forget the ‘scum and ashes’ of the past, Szymborska mourns the ease with which the comfortable new generation forget the mistakes of the past.Goof sentence and some really good ideas, however it is really long. Maybe try and break it into two. Contrastingly, this quick recovery in response to the brutality of human conflict is painted by Szymborska One thng to remember with writing is to try and stay away from saying the author does and says 'x'. Since you don't actually know what the author is saying. How about saying, 'painted within the poem/text', or 'the text lends itself to x interpretation'. It just sounds better and also teachers generally like it more. in light, mellow colours within the romantic stanzas of Reality Demands. Meticulously crafting a powerful list of places crushed by conflict- ‘Cannae’; ‘Pearl Habour’; ‘Hastings’- If there is any evidence within the the text that these are places crushed by conflict, add that in with the name. You need to provide evidence for this poing, like how/where does it say that these are crushed with conflict?Szymborska in the face of the cold truths of war boldly notes that ‘life goes on’. Good :)Woven into the words of Reality Demands is the underlying confidence and hope that even within this ‘terrifying world’, the speedy recovery of societies which aresubject to conflict and hardship is a ‘charm’. Constantly championing the concept of rebirth through phrases such as ‘where Hiroshima had been Hiroshima is again’ and ‘the grass is green on Maciejow’s fields’, Szymborska acknowledges that although ‘perhaps all fields are battlefields’, the concept of a forgiving revival from unforgiving violence is one which makes ‘waking up worthwhile’. Nice ending
The ubiquitous nature of war is one painfully expressed across both poemsby Szymborska.UtilisingThrough the utilisation of (You are starting a lot of your sentences with verbs. While that is very good, it sounds better is you maybe change it up a bit. It also adds more of a flow. a constant stream of full-stops in The End and the Beginning to break up the stanzas and create short, stunted statements, Szymborska reflects a mirror-image of the sharp, repetitive character of war itself. Lamenting that ‘all the cameras have left for another war’, Szymborska paints a painfully realistic world in which wars come and go with such frequency that ‘already there are those… who will find it dull’. Similarly, in Reality Demands Szymborska puts forth a powerful list of places affected by war, such as ‘Kosovo Polje and Guernica’, ‘Jericho’ and ‘Bila Hora’, graphing within the reader’s mind an overwhelming map of the numerous locations human conflict has destroyed. Again, expand this a little more...how? provide evidence. even if it's a sentence which leads up to the listingBy utilising this method of writing akin to methodical list-taking, Szymborska presents cold evidence of the painfully pervasive nature of war. What is your question? If you have a question or thesis statement, try and use the words from those as it provides a nice ending and answers the 'question'. From the last paragraph, I can sort of tell, however, the wording in your last ending sentence and this one are almost completely different. Try using somewhat similar words to wrap up, which will remind your reader of what you are conveying (or why)
My tutor has been saying to me to always write in the active, and I was just wondering if I could get more opinions on that? Because occasionally even in the VCAA exemplar essays they write in the passive, and no one's ever told me anything like that so I was just wondering if it was okay to take that on board. Thanks! :)
Hey, here are some of my thoughts, I hope you find them helpful, and feel free to question or disregard them if you don't agree:
You wrote this well, and have some brilliant ideas, just watch phrasing at times and also your topic sentence and ending sentences. Also, expand a little more in places, and add some more evidence.
Hey, thanks so much for correcting it for me, I really really appreciate it. :) I just had something I wanted to ask, if that's okay...Okay, maybe I didn't convey it right... it is okay to say 'recovery in response to the brutality of human conflict is painted by Szymborska'... However, most of my teachers generally say just to stay away as much as you can from these type of sentences. There is a very thin line between using the author's name to generate meaning, and using the author's name and saying 'Author X did this to convey Y'. The key word here is 'to'. Since you don't have it, your sentence is alright (but bordering the don't-do-line). The reason behind it is mostly because you don't actually know what the author was thinking or why they did something. So every essay writer should stay away from outright saying that the author did X to convey Y. You don't know what the author did or why they did it. If you are going to say something like that you should really have some sort of quote from the author integrated into the paragraph validating it.
I think you mentioned not to say things like 'author X does and says such and such' and things like that, and actually that's something which has been bothering me. ??? My tutor keeps telling me to write in the active and always attach a name to an action (so she's like 'who does the painting? Author X does! Make sure to include it and say Author X does the painting.'), and I've been really unsure because I've never heard that before. Even in the VCAA exemplar essays they write in passive sometimes, so I'm a little wary of taking that advice.
Do you think you could maybe clear that up for me?
Thanks so much :)
Can we upload essays in response to past VCAA passage analysis'?Absolutely! :)
The following is an essay in response to the 2015 VCAA passage analysis of A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen.
Henrik Ibsen challenges the traditional and stereotypical conventions of society as he depicts a woman initially 'like a child' but through experience abandons her 'sacred duties' in order to become 'free' from the moral obligations that she is forced to fulfill as a woman good recognition of Nora's development. The quoted evidence isn't doing all that much. You may find that your intro will be stronger (and less like an English essay) by starting within a passage. Eg. When Torvald likens Nora to "a child" in Passage X, Ibsen....... In this way you can intimately associate authorial intent and evidence.. Nora's self-sacrificial attitudes and duties diminishdoes her attitude really diminish? Or is she just "pretending" for Torvald. Nora is indeed a multifaceted woman. as Ibsen implements the use of possessive pronouns to illustrate how Nora begins as Helmer's 'baby' and 'child' but evolves into an opinionated woman as she discovers clarity amidst hostilitylovely. Nora's profound realisation reflectsI'm not sure this is the right verb. Perhaps: "Nora's profound realisation is, symbolically, a larger rejection of the patriarchal society in which she resides. the rebellion against the patriarchal system in which she resides. The patriarchal conventions serve as a catalyst for the tragedies and triumphs that permeateare permeated throughout the play text.good intro covering V+Vs. Sometimes it has an English feel to it, rather than a Lit CPA one. Starting in the passage should overcome this.
Nora's 'frivolous' nature forces her to fall victim this conclusion is coming in quite early. Try and work broad to narrow. Start with the possessive pronouns and tease out their implications and effects.to Helmer's possessive mechanisms as demonstrated by the possessive pronouns. The reoccurring motif of the animalistic metaphor and possessive pronoun <---- it seems as though you are just name dropping here. Substitute it with analysis! manifesto ?assists in the illustration of Helmer's manipulation and commodification of Nora as Helmer states 'be my own little skylark again'. Nora '[dresses] up] for Helmer which in turn maskstry and be more explicit. What does dressing up correspond to? A performance? A portrayal? Is Nora consciously assuming this "role"? the deep sorrow and emotional turmoil that she endures through her fractured marriage. The melodramatic behaviour masks Nora's inner struggle however simultaneously causes the and forbodes the conflict that unfolds towards the latter stages of the play textnice foreshadowing. The objectification of Nora is accentuated by Mrs Linde's statement 'poor Nora' as this reflects both her immaturity but also the entrapment how does it reflect this? Is the "poor" addition patronising?she experiences as a result of Helmer's masculine dominance.
Amidst Nora's explanation and justification, she demonstrates to Mrs Linde her desire to become 'like all the other young wives'. Nora is often alienated by her disfigured husbanddisfigured? whilst she too is manipulatedand morphedinto a more desirable being. Her feminine 'obligations' to her 'husband and children' manifest themselves into her life which in turn encapsulates her this is retelling. If you are quoting from the text, provide analysis with it. In a CPA, it is dangerous to quote for the purpose of evidence alone.. Nora's self-sacrificial rituals when stating 'you mustn't think of anything else but me' reflects her susceptibility to objectification how?. 'Then you'll be free' depicts Nora's release from Helmer and his possession which is coherent with the 'tarantella' as this denotes the notions of emotional expression and escapism, ridding herself of the illness of deceit and supposed disloyaltygood references to illness and the act of cleansing (which align with the tarantella and its symbolism). However, you need to be more intimate with the evidence. I'm still asking, "how do you know?" after reading the concluding V+V statement. Other characters 'wouldn't understand' the complexity of Nora's standing in her marriage because this reflects the solitary confinement in which Nora is subject to in her supposed 'lovely happy home'nice V+V statement, but what is so sickly superficial about the phrase "lovely happy home?" Think of the two adjectives and their compounding nature.. Her gradual detachment from Helmer's tyrannical ideals is compromised as she succumbs to him once more when she exclaims 'here she is'. Through simplicity of language and the bluntness of tone. Ibsen depicts Nora's entrapment and confinement whilst conveying her attempts to escape Helmer's possession good zoom out. Something more to think about:
Why does Nora say "here she is." Why is she referring to herself in second person speech? Does this imply that she is consciously aware of her "role"?.
Nora's profound transformation from a 'little skylark' and 'inexperienced creature' to a selfless be careful with these subjective phrases.
Yes Nora is making a stance for humanity, but her decision is simultaneously selfish (leaving her children). Just take into account the varying perspectives.woman encapsulates Ibsen's portrayal of a developing and prosperous character. From a figment of Helmer's imaginationnot entirely sure what you mean by this? Do you mean Torvald's idealised image of Nora?, Nora experiences a emphatic realisation as she rebels against his 'madness' and strives to become 'a real wife'. Nora's surety of both herself and her situation symbolises her transition, whilst her authorial voice is amplified by the absence of melodrama and over-exaggerated behavioursevidence? You must work closely with the passages. Nora's infatuation with perfectionism is shattered when she confronts both herself and her relationships boldlyevidence?, proving she is no longer of being 'alone' in a 'world outside' of Helmer's parameters. Ironically, through Nora's realisation of Helmer's oppressing nature and acknowledgement of her own imperfections she is able to 'educate' herself and transform from a seemingly artificial and unrealistic character to an individual who admits to her mistakes but who is subsequently willing to gain a sense of purpose through 'some experience'all wonderful ideas and conclusions, but the close analysis is lacking. Remember to acknowledge and appreciate 'A Doll's House' as a play. How would audiences feel at certain moments? How do stage directions indicate certain character tendencies? .
Ibsen successfully depicts flawed characters through his naturalistic conventions and style. The realism that is seamlessly interwoven throughout the play text allows audiences to explore and follow the development of characters previously 'ill' with the deceit that plagued the house, to individuals who question conventionalism so that individualism and equality can prosper.
Here's one for Heaney's poetry,
(If anyone could provide feedback, please do)
Throughout Opened Ground, the celebrated poetry of Seamus Heaney commentates on life, death, and the state of the Irish culture. His poems, “Follower” and “Requiem for the Croppies”, reflect on his own regrets and remorse, as well as the power to change and abide to the societal norms that had been built for him. His own takes and liberties on Irish history as well as his own personal history make these poems shattering in its emotional complexity.
In the poem “Follower”, Heaney states that children grow up, they seek to follow the footsteps of their parents and as a result, they end up inheriting many values and characteristics from their parents. Heaney seems to have been so close and admiring to the father. In fact he says "His shoulders globed like a full sail string”. This is an indication of how detailed the boy's admiration was to the father. Heaney further reveals the moments that he stumbled behind the father as he ploughed and he says "I was a nuisance, tripping, falling”, dramatizing the transformation that took place from childhood to manhood. In the poem “Requiem for the Croppies”, Heaney recollects on the war “…On Vinegar Hill…”, as Irish rebels lost their lives in the battle against British military. The poem both opens and closes with the image of “barley”. This is the small amount that the fighters have gathered and that they devote their pockets to. It is closely related to them, an image of their native environment, and their reason for fighting. The opening two lines of the poem indicate the nomadic and yet, natural lifestyle of the rebels, who must carry food, in the form of barley, in their coats and who have “no kitchens on the run” and few if any possibilities of setting up permanent camps show that the rebels were disorganized and hurried. Here, Heaney is stripping heroism down to its essentials, an idea and an action.
Heaney's “Follower” depicts the image of his own father. The poem has been related to a setting of the boy in his childhood reflecting on the relationship that he had with the father. Furthermore, the boy describes the different things that the father did on the farm of which it is evident that he describes them with admiration. The father's work in the farm has been described as one that was done with precision and accuracy. This is strengthened by the word that begins the second stanza of the poem; "An Expert" which is then followed by a full stop to show that the father's work was done carefully and accurately. So to speak, it was actually a perfect work. He also describes how the father's eye narrowed and angled at the ground along with an aspect of mapping the furrow exactly. The image of priests and war in “Requiem” is also a sign of the significance that God and the priesthood played in Heaney’s youth. As “the priest [laid] behind ditches”, this shows even Catholic priests must hide from the English. Heaney shows that their uprising is communal and shared by including the “priest” and the “tramp”, contrasting the faithless with the faithful. It shows the opposing views that have plagued Heaney his entire life, the father in his life that he aspired to be and ended up left to be behind, with the mythical idea of God, plaguing the young Heaney in it’s ambiguity. This is emphasised through “the scythes at cannon”, as the death and reality that plunges into the heart of Heaney.
The last three verses of “Follower” reflect on the present happenings whereby the boy says that in the present time the roles have reversed. Moreover, he says that the father is presently stumbling owing to the dictates of time. As a matter of fact he says "It is my father who keeps stumbling behind me, and will not go away". From this perspective, it seems that the father is the one who is currently relying on the boy and seeking for the boy's protection since he can no longer support himself due to the weaknesses that come along with age.The last 2 lines of “Requiem” brings the work full-circle, explaining how the barley seeds carried by the Irish eventually blossomed, out of the Irish graves, into new-born barley plants. Thus, in the closing line (the “barley grew up out of the grave”) the symbol of the countryside and the image of their struggle is left behind them. This symbolizes the determined “we’ll be back” nature of the Irish, who do not give in easily. There is no death or burial here, but growth in the summer sun.
Wow.. this thread is awesome.. and thankyou to all those on here
would love some feedback on the NEAP 2017 exam section C regarding Vice Chancellor at Cara College. it was done with the school under exam conditions
be harsh! :)
Cara College welcomes the ‘potential students’ to their college and university by the Vice Chancellor’s speech giving them an insight to the atmosphere and values of the school which holds their potential future. Yet, the vice Chancellor uses this as an opportunity to raise a prominent issue of freedom of speech and the groups which are categorise and or labelled within society, and seeks to link this to the audience of potential graduates sitting in front of him by demonstrating and implying that their college have ensured a fat greater degree of ‘social and civil cohesiveness’. Using a formal register to promote his ‘elite’ position and gain respect for his speech (and position), the speaker connects with his audience, by directly addressing them in statements, questions and holding or presenting them in a future with this major regional university. Whilst there are elements of professionalism, the language choices are not too sophisticated or complex, allowing the audience to be persuaded in understanding the points which the speak presents, regarding the segregation and ostracization in society and their attempt to maintain a happy constructive atmosphere.
The speaker begins by contextualising the speech and ‘welcoming’ the (audience) to the college. Suing three brief sentences to sum up the advantages, using positive connotations to the words ‘special’ ‘welcoming’ and ‘safe’ the speech creates a platform for the listener to be enthused and hold in high esteem the college and its values being an ‘inclusive’ – yet another positive word – ‘community’. The opening slide of the speaker’s presentation also gives a visual communication to the audience backing the positivity and enthusiasm of the spoken words. The silhouettes are happy, inclusive and can be seen by the different shapes, styles of hair and heights the diversity which the university brings together to form are happy and (part of) a friendly environment. Further he quotes and the famous world-renowned leader ‘Martin Luther King, Jr’ acts as a reinforcement and or endorsement to the ideas of freedom, livery and inclusiveness, ultimately causing the audience to have respect and open ears foot the issue and argument in which the vice chancellor presents to them in his or her speech. Yet, the speaker quickly moves on from this using this brief introduction, welcome and slide to contextualise and create a platform for the young adults to be influenced and respected by their later arguments.
It is the bulk of the speech where the Vice Chancellor focusses on the broader and wider issue of the ‘political correctness’ and its labelling of ‘one of the elites’ against ‘the disadvantaged’. He or she seeks to eliminate and doubts within anyone of the audiences’ mind when saying ‘there is not question’ position them to immediately be persuades into the statement which is presented as only one sided and without any falter or hesitation in which the statement, ‘that there is a fine line between freedom of speech and political correctness’, is absolutely correct. It is from here where the vice chancellor furthers his stance in acknowledging – in an attempt to be fair and level headed- a counter argument for people to debate social, politics and cultural issues. Similarly, he or she goes onto quote a senior politician and his acceptance of ‘entrenched intolerance’ which is counteracted and interrogated by the question following, upmost mocking in presenting and sound arguments against the politicians and his ‘elitist’ views. Further, the vice chancellor uses this as an opportunity to present his or her own values to have a ‘favour of our responsibility to be decent human beings’, and therefore gaining respect from the audience due to his approach on treating every individual equally irrespective of their education and or differences. Moving on the speaker seeks to define ‘free speech’ – and is saying ‘or should not mean’ acknowledges his awareness to the issues of society and that is does happen- by listing negatively weighted, degrading verbs ‘insult, deride or undermine’. The speaker further lists the groups of which individuals may be compartmentalised into ‘family, nationality, gender race or realisation’ to clearly communicate during his speech to the audience his definition of freedom of speech and the importance it holds.
In the culmination of the arguments the Vice Chancellor seeks to individually address every individual in the crowd and place an appeal to responsibility and urgency to help influence and help prevent their ‘wedges’ in society, and thus ultimately implying this is the college or university for students to strive to closing the gaps in society. the speech becomes more heated as emphasis could be seen by the capitalisation of the letter and including the audience to feel responsible for the divides within society. the speaker seeks to demonstrate to the audience that it is those themselves who are ‘elitists’ which cause groups within society. he seeks to appeal to the students and their potential future, and the opportunities and choices in which they take. In the last two paragraphs the last sentences are direct to each individual to appeal them to help the Cara College to make the difference and ensure a ‘social and civil cohesiveness’. In closing, the speaker leaves with a direct sentence eliminating doubts and finishing on a note of positivity, ‘I am confident you all know the difference’.
The vice Chancellor sees the opening speech to potential students as an opportunity to address the issue within the wider community to highlight the strengths, values and focuses of Cara College. It is with that of professionalism and authority the speaker appeals to the audience to feel the responsibility in making the world a more cohesive place. In expressing the issues of division within society, the speaker seeks to highlight the inclusive nature and atmosphere of the college, positioning the audience to hold the university in high esteem.
Hello,
Just letting you know that this is a 'Literature' essay submission thread, you can check out the English work submission board here https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?board=406.0 to submit an English essay for marking :)
Hi :) This is a response to the VCAA 2014 passage on A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
Helmer's dehumanising attitudes and tones subjugate Nora and are reflective of the way both he and Nora are metaphoric products on their contemporary Bourgeoisie society do you have evidence to substantiate these dehumanising attitudes?. Nora is labelled as 'a sweet little bird' and 'little song bird' by Helmer as this is his attempt to maintain the 'mere facade' that the two characters live behind this would be perfect in the previous sentence. Especially if this is an introduction.. Both Nora and Helmer exist in their own superficial realm that is constructed for them by the relentless Bourgeoisie system in which they reside. Helmer cannot tolerate the thought of being 'petty' or holding a lower social position to Nora as this compromises his superior role both in his home and in society this is great for V+V, but how are you using the evidence for solid analysis?. In order to conform to his role, Helmer metaphorically possesses Nora, although he does so and subjects Nora to commodification, Nora similarly depends on Helmer as they exist symbiotically, co-dependent on each other again, how can you justify this interdependency. Henrik Ibsen reflects upon the commodification of both Nora and Helmer and challenges the stereotypical social mores that underpin the marriage of Helmer and Nora really good ideas in this paragraph. However, I'd recommend that you work closer with the language to inform your overarching interpretation..
The superficiality of Helmer and Nora's marriage is reflective of the 'sweet' exterior of the macaroon that Nora both indulges in and conceals from Helmer. The physical anatomy and construction of the macaroon is symbolic of Nora and Helmer's relationship as it is sweet and attractive from an external view but once 'nibbled' or damaged, has the capability to reveal the 'ugliness' of its real nature. The macaroon is ascetically pleasing, however, once indulged in, can cause decay and unhealthiness I'd try and draw a tighter connection between this sentence and the previous. It wasn't entirely clear what the "ugliness" was. . Nora's 'sweet-tooth' and obsession with confectionary reflects her need to conform and continue her façade in her marriage how does it reflect this?. Helmer and Nora are metaphorically plagued with deceit and superficiality as they conform to the Bourgeoisie ideals, just as the macaroon can cause decay when consumed, the nature of Nora and Helmer's marriage is truly revealed when Nora suggests that Helmer's 'motives are petty'this link seems a bit tenuous.. Ibsen's introduction and use of 'sweet' delicacies are reflective of the aesthetics the marriage and further depicts the deconstruction of character that can occur.
As Nora suggests that Helmer's reasons are 'petty' she unintentionally I'd be careful of these word choices. Especially for Nora's character. She is an extremely cunning woman, who speaks with a sharp conscious.challenges the role of both her and her husband in their co-dependent marriage. Helmer's masculinity and paternal dominance over Nora is compromised as she degrades him and suggests that his '[morals]' are unreasonable. In order for Helmer to atone for his degradation and humiliation by Nora, he 'searches among his papers'. This act reflects Helmer's attempt to return to the security of his domestic probably social? Domestic is generally the woman's sphere.and gendered sphere where he can once again become dominant and superior within his marriage I think you need to devote more analysis to this stage direction.
I'm not entirely convinced that this enables Torvald to reassert authority.. Helmer reverts refers?to Nora as 'little Miss Stubborn', this metaphorically detaches him could do with some further clarity.from Nora again so that he can regain the power over her. Ibsen's explicit use of Helmer's 'papers' as a symbol of patriarchal dominance in a marriage signifies his exploration into the role of a man and woman within a marriage and endorses the notion that both man and woman can become social products of the societal realm in which they reside. Nice ideas coming through again. This is entirely personal preference, but I try and refrain from using one piece of symbolism to reach my argument (per paragraph). It may indicate to examiners that you haven't reached an interpretation based off of all passages.
The 'terrible awakening' of both Helmer and Nora symbolises their epiphanic 'realisation' that neither of them will become what each other desire. As the 'letter' is revealed, Nora stands still, 'wild-eyed', 'looking fixedly' as her 'expression hardens' <----retelling in these last 2 lines.. As the truth of Nora's crime is revealed Helmer 'seizes' her in a dominant and aggressive manner. This is metaphoric of Helmer's attempt to prevent Nora from exiting her social sphere <-- good and challenging the ideals that their marriage is built on, Helmer continues to 'hold her back' whilst Nora '[struggles] to free herself'. The physical possession of Nora reflects her one last attempt to escape the constraints of her marriage and to finally become a 'woman'. Helmer remains perplexed at Nora's effort the 'get some experience', as alluded to in Act Three, because he himself has become accustomed to his habitual and impenetrable role that he been forced to appease do you have any evidence to justify this?. Helmer exclaims that for the 'last eight years' Nora has been '[his] joy and pride' and this justifies his commodification of Nora can tease out more evidence? , which makes her decision to leave both her husband and children and to abandon her moral duties as a wife and mother all the more profoundwhy does it make it more profound? Need a stronger link between the pair. . As Helmer remains perplexed at the situation that he is confronted with, he reverts to the traditional, rigid values which underpin his character, proposing that Nora's pursuit for individualism is due to her 'father's shiftless character' as Helmer claims 'these things are hereditary' great V+V statement. But would be even stronger with further analysis of these quotes.. The co-dependencyis this a co-dependency? Or a selfishness on one side? on each other is accentuated by Helmer's bold declarations like 'you've completely wrecked my happiness'. This embodies the way Helmer and Nora have depended on each other I think it's more how Helmer has depended on Nora. in order to survive a maintain the mere façade and false sense of identity they are subjected to.
Ibsen proposes that women are not the only individuals who are subjected to the performativity and oppression, and he does this by constructing an emotionally tormented husband who is ravaged by the pressure to fulfill his masculine and paternal role. Nora's depersonification by Helmer accentuates his masculine role within his marriage, however through challenging her social domains and gendered sphere, Nora seeks for liberation and a life where she can be 'free' of moral obligations. This development of Nora symbolises Ibsen's portrayal and understanding of individualism and a 'righ' to self.
I'm continually working at making my writing expressive, fluent and coherent as I have the ideas about the text, but its the structure of my writing that's letting me down a bit. I am working on exploring the 'how' as opposed to the 'what' and 'why' because I think my V+V's are quite strong when coupled with how the text is actually creating meaning. I'm also attempting to explore my quotes that I embed and trying not to use them as evidence from the text. Lastly, the analysis of my writing is the core and centre of my focus. I've posted on here before, quite recently actually and I'm looking for a few handy tips that I could implement to take my writing to the next level before the exam. I'm writing on A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen.
The following is a recent practise timed essay that I have done using the CPA from the VCAA 2016 exam
When Helmer likens Nora to a 'skylark' and 'featherbrain' the gender imbalance and inequity of their marriage is ultimately reflected this is a good opening piece of close analysis. The nature of a featherbrain implies that Nora is 'frivolous' and child-like, who is expected to perform the designated role that her contemporary Bourgeoisie society has laid out for her. Helmer dictates to Nora 'from his study' with 'a pen in hand' as she is held to ransom by him, Helmer's dominant position in the marriage is reflected by his physical position in the setting in which he resides, he is often placed in a setting on his own terms whilst Nora's behaviours are predetermined by <----> Is there a sentence missing? Watch the length of your sentences. Nora is bold and cunning enough to seek a new order for herself, exclaiming, 'as I am now, I'm not the wife for you' whilst Helmer 'can't even imagine' Helmer as she continues to play out the role of the 'doll'. Ibsen depicts Nora as 'delicate' and 'fragile' which confoundsI don't think this is the right verb. Perhaps complements (in a contrived sense!) the masculine, brute-like depiction of Helmer, the contrast in characterisation assists the audience in comprehending the marital imbalance that pervades the play. Both Helmer and Nora are repressed and riles bit jolting hereby their contemporary societal ideals that are placed upon them, however they contrast each other in the way that living a life without Nora presentneed some further clarity.
Helmer can initially be seen in his 'study' or with 'wallet' in hand whilst Nora 'slips the bag of macaroons' so to conceal them from Helmer try and draw some further evidence from this. Torvald occupies these subjects with comfort/security (not overwhelmed by persistent caution like Nora), what does this intimate?. Helmer can be observed continually entering and exiting his study and this is contributed his characterisation expressionas a relentless husband, attempting to maintain his superiority in the 'doll-house'. Helmer is a masculine figure in control of his business whilst Nora can be seen often concealing objects form him. When Helmer steps out of his metaphoric social sphere, symbolised by his 'study' he can only treat Nora 'like a child' possessing her and having the paternal authority over her. 'He goes to her and takes her playfully by the ear' to demonstrate he is in control, whilst this reflects Helmer's dominance, it is also symbolic of Nora's inferiority within her marriage can you pull it out further? Parts of her body are implicitly constrained by Torvald's force. There is something chilling about the word "playfully" here.. Often, when Helmer and Nora are together as man and wife, Helmer possesses a patronising and condescending tone evidence?toward Nora and it is only during the times when Nora acts 'crestfallen' that she gains a sense of control and dictatorship over Helmer as she taps in Helmer's weaknesses nice observation. Helmer struggles to contain his disdain and annoyance when Nora is upset because this infers that his role is not being fulfilled as it is his 'moral obligation' to protect Nora and to behave as if she is his commodity. As Helmer notices that his 'little squirrel' is 'sulking' he provides a materialistic solution to Nora's woes and anxieties and declares that he has 'money' yes. It is also a paternalistic solution (again allowing him to reassert his dominance). This may or may not conflict with your established interpretation, but Nora's "sulking" and assumption of the "little squirrel" identity (in my opinion) is a conscious decision. She is well aware of the advantages that come with adopting two roles.. Almost instantaneously, Nora once again adopts the immature behaviour and melodrama that form the basis of her character and it is through the symbolism of wealth and enterprise that Ibsen is able to reflect the materialistic and superficial nature of the Helmer family. Both Helmer and Nora are unable to become truly content and happy within their marriage, '[pretending]' to live a life of happiness by the rigid focus and emphasis on their economy and wealth true, the foundations are predicated upon pretence and falsehood..
As the play develops Nora and Krogstad's hostile encounters continue as he approaches Nora, regarding her act of forgery. Nora 'looks defiantly' at Krogstad and gives the 'dangerous admission' of forging her father's signature as she claims it was to save Helmer's life. This act is considered dangerous as the 'law that [Nora] is judged on' is one that both underpins and represents the patriarchal Bourgeoisie society that Nora functions in. This endorses the notion that Nora is unfairly positioned in both her marriage and society as a free-thinking, ambiguous woman because her acts and decisions are critiqued and penalised by a gendered law that treat every individual on the merits of an entire society this is starting to launch back into V+Vs a bit too heavily. Try and tease out Nora looking defiantly. How does it contrast her interactions with Torvald?. During Nora's hostile confrontation with Krogstad she exclaims that 'it must be a very stupid law', this critical and emotive explanation embodies the frustration and angst felt by Nora as she becomes conscious that to her detriment, her punishment will be determined by an unfair law that fails to seek for justice and freedom good. The questions asked by Nora become a motif and emulate her attempt to find an answer and reason for the confusion and anxiety she is experiencing. She asks 'hasn't a daughter the right to protect her dying father?' Similarly she asks 'hasn't a wife the right to save her husband's life?' 'With a toss of her head' she succumbs to and is forced to accept the societal demands she is placed under, its at this point following her confrontation that Nora experiences the true confines of her marriage good. Also consider why she makes reference to "a daughter" and "a wife." By generalising her own situation, she is, in effect, making a broader plea on behalf of the female sex.. The vivid stage direction of tossing her head reflects the confliction and confusion that Nora undergoes in attempting to atone for her crime, it symbolically represents Nora's mental and emotional fatigue, stemming from her continual performance and façade that she must maintain. Proceeding her confrontation with Krogstad, Nora can be seen 'to busy herself by tidying the children's clothes' which is reflective of her re-entering her social sphereis it a social sphere? Or domestic one? Good pick up, though. She metaphorically moves in an out of different roles and identities., accepting her contemporary duty in the home. The act of tidying and cleansing the home is also symptomatic of her efforts to maintain the perfect illusion to the exterior so that the external world cannot enter the inner sanctum of the Helmer household where deceit is borne good.
When Nora begins to converse with Helmer in passage three as a woman in her marriage it reflects her attempts to free herself from Helmer's constraints. During her realisation and moment of clarity Nora adopts the appropriate courage to confront Helmer and to challenge both his and the radical Bourgeoisie ideals good explanation, but a bit alarming with no quotes! Always come back to the important of the task, which is to closely analyse. Language is your foundation. . Nora confesses her miracle whilst the stark imbalance of their marriage is reflected when Nora asks 'but who would have taken my word against yours?' Nora's struggle for individual autonomy is embodied by this question and she acknowledges the helplessness that she experiences as it is almost second-nature and an innate construct to believe a man over a womannice. Her question refers to the reoccurring motif of the 'miracle' that pervades the discussion between Helmer and Nora and the nature of the miracle denotes Nora's presence and consciousness of her inferior role within her marriage, accepting that Helmer will never be an individual who will take the blame and protect her as he is expected to getting a bit too wordy. Come back to more evidence/analysis.. Nora, during this moment, seeks for individualism but is once again ridiculed and considered inferior when Helmer states 'you stupid child'. Helmer's derogatory statement is reflective of his opinion that Nora does not possess the necessary and appropriate ability to live a life without a male partner, without a masculine figure to teach her and show her how to the play the role that she is expected to fulfill. This confrontation symbolises Nora's gradual transitionor even revolution now. The play has been building to this. Although many critics disagree, there are a multitude of latent hints that build towards this transormation. from 'a little songbird' and Helmer's 'doll-child' into a woman who is legally and emotionally freed from her marital obligations whereby she can separate herself from Helmer's paternal dominance. Nora's bold statements like ' I won't see the children' and 'You're not to feel yourself bound in any way' signifies her attempts to gain control over her fate and destiny, free from the constraints of her marriage. Her decisions can be considered both selfless and selfish in the context of Nora's situation amid a Bourgeoisie classist structure, however it is through acts such as these that Nora can gain experience outside of her home, so that she can become an individual.
Clarke54321, here is another CPA based on the 2017 VATE passages for A Doll's House- I'm also struggling a little with my conclusion, any advice would be greatly appreciated regarding a conclusion to a CPA!!
When Helmer declares 'you loved me as a wife should love her husband' it is apparent that Nora is and has been placed under both Helmer's strict and unrealisticI'd refrain from this type of conclusion so early. That's something I'd build towards as I tease out more close analysis. ideals, which are ultimately constructed by the broader Bourgeoisie society in which they reside. The emphasis of this declaration nothing wrong with this, but just clarifying that it was explicitly emphasised in the play itself (sorry I'm not doing this text for CPA, but studied it throughout the year- memory is starting to fail me :))is on the 'should' as it illustrates the Nora's moral and emotional obligation to her family and the way in which she is expected to bind herself wholly to Helmer. Nora is expected to perform her 'duty' as 'a wife' and 'a mother' and this is accentuated by the Helmer's condescending and paternal instructions toward her. At the denouement of the play when Nora's secret is revealed Helmer informs Nora that he has 'forgiven [her] for everything'. This declaration reflects his patriarchal dominance in their symbiotic relationship as he declares it with pride and authority. Through the possessive pronoun- animalistic metaphor manifesto not seeing the link here Ibsen depicts a marital imbalance and furthermore reveals that both Helmer and Nora require each other in order to maintain the illusion to the external world. Helmer's often superficial tone more evidence necessary. The great thing about your CPA's is that you never fail to provide the "why" (V+V) element. However, it is crucial that you continually weave evidence (serving an analytical purpose) throughout the piece.constructs the façade that both he and Nora are living behind in order to maintain the perfect illusion which causes a paradoxical effect where both characters become conscious of their fragmented and fractured relationship. Ibsen characterises both Helmer and Nora in a manner that reflects the marital imbalance within their marriage and the duty forced upon Nora as she represents the inferior, '[helpless] individual in her marriage. Is this paragraph an integrated introduction? Fine if it is!
Nora's conversation with Mrs Linde regarding her own experiences functions on a superficial level as Nora can be seen 'jumping and clapping her hands' exclaiming 'it's wonderful to be alive'. Her highly energised movements and melodrama that are interwoven throughout her dialogue between herself and Mrs Linde illustrates the role of Nora within her private, social sphere This is a bit vague. What is this role? Nora's exclamations are almost sickly in nature. That is, her excessive praising of life works to unveil the paradoxical reality of pretence (and superficiality) that Nora is seemingly consumed by. . Nora's melodrama proceeds her declaration that 'Torvald's never had a day's illness since. And the children are well and strong, and so am I'. This bold statement proves patronising and condescending as Nora lacks the ability to empathise with the plight that Mrs Linde has endured with the absence of a husband to shelter and protect her from life's hostilitythis is very picky, but could be deemed as subjective. Maybe add the apparent/seeming in front of it.. Nora appears overexcited and energised however this ultimately masks her inner angst and turmoil as she later '[takes] off the fancy dress' when experiencing her epiphanic realisation. The act of jumping up and down, followed by her '[sitting] on a footstool beside Kristina' nice. Can you add any further analysis to this to make it stronger?reflects Nora's patronising attitudes as she feels it necessary to physically lower herself in order to converse with Mrs Linde. Nora seems completely unaware of the emotional and physical turmoil that Mrs Linde has had to endure when she exclaims 'how relieved you must feel' in response to Mrs Linde's description of her formidable work ethic during the periods of sorrow and angst. Nora's superficial understanding and lack of compassion is reflected by Mrs Linde's sharp and blunt response Is it sharp/blunt or more wistful? Saddened? What does the ellipsis do here?'No... Just unspeakably empty- I've no one to live for anymore'. The pause in Mrs Linde's dialogue depicts her strong-willed nature as she attempts to educate Nora as she 'hasn't the experience' to comprehend Mrs Linde's situation. Nora's superficiality is ultimately exemplified through Ibsen's characterisation of her and it is through this that Ibsen himself attempts to portray the passive, unnatural duty that Nora is expected to meetpunctually. Nora's obligations are forced upon her, whilst she remains a 'dove' who is conscious of her situation but who is not yet prepared to challengeAfter having just read the start of your next paragraph, it seems as though you are going to shed more light on this silent metamorphosis. I didn't get much of a feel for it in this paragraph. So instead of finishing this paragraph with a fully fleshed interpretation (the bold), I'd maybe hint. You could say that there are signs of Nora's transgressive desires. This would complement the next paragraph. the oppressing tyranny of both her society and her husband.
It is through the hostile confrontation with Krogstad that Nora begins to notice her role more clearly as an individual and not just as a wife or mother. It is when Krogstad attempts to frighten Nora with his angered and contemptuous remarks to Nora depicting his attempts of redemption that Nora adopts the necessary 'courage' to confront him need more evidence in these two sentences. How does Krogstad frighten Nora?. Krogstad's efforts to atone for his past crime reflects Nora's current situation of attempting to conceal the lies and deceit that gradually manifest themselves throughout the home and into the character's consciousness great V+V, but need more evidence to justify.. When Nora challenges Krogstad by declaring 'Yes, I have the courage now' he dismisses this instantaneously by replying ' You can't frighten me! A fine pampered lady like you.' It is this moment that Krogstad demonstrates the sexist ideals that categorise women as weak and vulnerable, incapable of experiencing any emotionhmm...not sure about this conclusion. as an individual and lacking the necessary capabilities to intellectualise their environment and situations. Krogstad's derogatory remarks subjugates Nora, once again to the oppressing ideals of the Bourgeoisie realm, where masculinity dictates to femininity. Nora is victimised by Krogstad and is ridiculed based on her gender. As Krogstad foreshadows Nora's suicide, he uses vivid, often chilling descriptions of her body 'under the ice', 'down into the cold water' and '[floating] to the top, ugly, hairless, unrecognisable'. With this description her crime becomes personified how? Tease out the symbolism. What is the suggestion here (floating to top ugly, hairless, unrecognisable)? This is a body devoid of any life- cannot be identified.and as Krogstad depicts her body to the top this emulates the nature of the secret she has kept hidden from Helmer, progressively surfacing ooh that is interesting. Well my previous interpretation regarding the body may no longer suffice. How do you interpret this? It may be worth mentioning.. His cruelty and disgust towards Nora at this moment initiates a fearless response to Krogstad, she rejects his attempt to frighten her, replying 'You can't frighten me' however this is abruptly met by Krogstad who depicts his true power over her stating boldly 'You forget that then your reputation would be in my hands'. Nora 'stands speechless' all verbal autonomy- interesting. Not just her body.which ultimately reflects her acknowledgement of Krogstad's power and his ability to reveal her secret and furthermore damage both her and Helmer's façade. Nora now realises that her marital position has the potential to be compromised, the perfect illusion that she constructs can be torn away and damaged, revealing the truth of her and her marriage.
When Nora is in the process of 'taking off [her] fancy dress' her feminine duty is deconstructed and abandoned why? Indeed it is natural for a dress to symbolise femininity. But you have to lay it out for the examiner. They need help connecting the dots.. The action of bearing herself and forcing herself from the fancy dress signifies her evolution into a woman who attempts to obtain individual autonomy. Helmer declares that his 'great wings will protect [Nora]' however he is unaware that he no longer holds the dominant position over Nora. The possessive pronoun and animalistic metaphor manifesto reflects Nora's inferior role and vulnerability in her marriage, however as she stands 'in her everyday things' it becomes clear that she is seeking for a sense of individualism and profound change It seems there is a contradiction here. Does everyday=profound change? Needs some further clarification.. The change she is seeking challenges everything that her marriage represents and she is simultaneously constructing a path for other women to follow. Through her 'experience' not worth quotingNora is able to gradually become aware of her needs as an individual by figuratively are they figurative in the end?questioning the oppressing ideals of her contemporary society through her actions and decisions.
If you want feedback on an essay, post it here! The compilation thread is for 'model' essays'.
- snip -
DIscuss the proposition that characters in Williams’ “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” are alone because they fail to deal with the “inadmissible things” of life.A play that slowly constructs an image of the decaying American Dream,The syntax of this sentence becomes a bit weird when you place this phrase at the front; it flows more nicely as a subordinate clause“Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”this is not a quote. it should be underlined, italicised or in single quotation marks, a play that slowly constructs an image of the decaying American Dream, explores the sordid reality of societal hierarchies during the cold war-era of the 1950’s. Overtly presenting the plantation as run by African-American slaves, Williams suggests that the affluent Pollitt family have prospered from the suppression of the lower class.SeeminglyI don't think you need thisimploring the audience to observe the ultimate outcome of a failure to deal with the “inadmissible things” stemming from the source of the Pollitts' wealth, Williams’ play reflectsMarx’sthe Marxist beliefofin the existence of a continual conflict of class within society.The source of Brick’s “disgust”,Again, I think this would work better in the middle of the sentence. the Pollitt family’smalignant and intrinsicI don't think these are the right words. view on personal wealth, the source of Brick’s “disgust”, results in thecatalysisThe word you're looking for is catalysing. It's a subtle difference but 'catalysis' refers to a chemical specifically, while 'catalysing' isn't strictly referring to a chemical of his reduction from a college “football star” to a “hobbling man”. In unison with Williams’ evocationI think you might have meant "As a result of", because the rest of the sentence doesn't make sense with this phrase. If you want to keep 'in unison with', then you have to refer to one other thing; you only referred to an 'evocation' and then went straight into the effect. Also, this is not really an 'evocation'in which he labels the majority of the play’s action as “not limited to the homosexual struggle of one man” but the “flickering , ... (you omitted a word so need to include an ellipsis and also you forgot the comma) interplay of live human beings”, the audience begins to understand that Brick’s alcoholism and subsequent liminalitybe careful with this word and its context is caused by his materialistic family and not “the one clean and true thing” that was his relationship with Skipper. Indeed, Brick’s disillusionment with the ideals possessed by his financially motivated relatives results in hisposition ofnot needed helplessnesswhereupon'characterised by a reliance on...' is more fitting he relies on an artificial “click” to grant him thepiecepeace he longs to experience. The hyper-materialistic and “deceitful” Pollitt family act as the product of the ironicallyyou need to explain how it is ironic coveted American Dream, and as a result, the family’s actions and behaviour resultssubject verb agreement in a questioning of Western societal ideals, supporting the existence of a hierarchical class conflict. Through his depiction of Brick as a “broken man”, Williams constructs an image of Brick that isextremelyparticularly pertinent, due to his cyclical dependency on money to fuel his alcoholism.Thusthis ultimately presentings an irony, where Brick’s solace of “Echo Spring” can only be achieved through his family’s exploitation of the lower class and continual fundingofthe money doesn't fund his devotion, it facilitates and perpetuates it his “devotion to the occupation of drinking”.Brick’s isolation from his family acts as the physical manifestation of his alcoholism;] an indictment of the upper class spoils which are gained through the exploitation of the lower class and reflect a failure to deal with the “inadmissible” truth regarding the source of his wealth.it's unclear what you're trying to say here. the semicolon should be used to relate the two sentences. the part following it doesn't relate to the part before it. i like the central focus of this paragraph, but you need to provide a bit more textual evidence for your interpretation.
The mercenary capitalist structure which underpins 1950’s the apostrophe is not needed southern America imposes stringent andcontrivedideals that culminate in the bitter andlonely unisonthis is an oxymoron (which is bad in writing) between Brick and Maggie. Exacerbating the loneliness of Maggie through her tragicevocationthis is not an evocation, “living with somebody you love can be lonelier than living entirely alone”, Williams highlights theisolatorythis isn't a word. you could replace it with 'isolation that ensues... from' effects of Brick’s “detachment” from his capitalist family. “Disgust[ed]” by his family’s exploitative nature, Brick withdraws from“the flickering interplay”never use a quote more than once that is the ongoing conflictofin his family, rejecting Maggie’s sexual advances. As a result of Brick’s“detachment”never use a quote more than once, Maggie's attempts toprotectmaintaintheintegrityofwithin her marriage in order to prevent herself from “dying poor”.areAa reflection of theconsumer dominatedfinancially motivated society that surrounds them, Maggie’s performance revolves around her projection of opulence and desirability to assert dominance over her relatives and the lower class slaves of the Pollitt familyhow do you know she's asserting her dominance over the slaves?.AdoptingDonning “mascara”, “bracelets” and an“ivory slip of lace”the quote is "slip of ivory satin lace". don't rearrange the words, and if you omit a word, use an ellipsis, she manipulates her surroundingswhat surroundings? to attempt to secure her financial prosperity.Serving as a reflectionReflecting upon the social climate of 1950’s society, Williams suggests that a projection of one’s prosepity and financial success was deemed acceptable andsomewhatnot the right word admirable during this Cold War era.Indeed,presenting Maggie as a lonely and over-indulgent wife, and Brick as a crippled, alcoholic husband, Williams presents a striking contrast to the “beaming smile” of Lacey and Sookey. Portraying the upper class as dejected and deplorable, and the lower class as optimistic and generous, Williams’ playpresentsis a scathingreflectionindictment of the exploitative nature of the upper class, reinforcing the Marxist notion of a continual andcyclicalconflictofbetween class ideals and image.
Even Williams, to an extent, disregards the importance of slavery on the plantation and in supporting the wider capitalist structure of Cold War Americathis is an incomplete sentence. His usual elaborate and extensive stage directions become less descriptive andastutein their requirements of Lacey and Sookey most notably through “One of the Negroes enter, either Lacey or Sookey”. Suggesting that the relevance and importance of either characterasis secondary to the conflict of the play, Williams, can be seentoas perpetuating the dismissive view of the lower class possessed by upper class Americathe phrasing is a bit messy. you could use 'the denigratory views on racial minorities held by upper class America. In unison with Big Daddy’s constant proclamation “that [he] built the place”, a subtle juxtaposition of the deceitful and financially motivated upper class Pollitt’s against the helpful and compliant African-American workers begins to arise.this sentence doesn't make sense. Whether it is Big Mama’s “fat fist clenching [her] mouth” or Mae’s face that contorts “horribly”, Williams presents the Pollitt family as miserable and unadmirablethose examples aren't 'miserable and unadmirable' despite their considerable wealth. It is through this representation that Williams tragically highlights the isolation of the Pollitt’s and disillusionment that they experience.those examples don't highlight any 'isolation' or 'disillusionment' Thepertinentimage of a “shrill” Maggie questioning herself, asking “who are you?” presents an image of a grown woman, whoat the admission of herself, anddespite her opulent jewellery and“slip of ivory ... lace”don't reuse quotes., remains unaware of her true identity and purpose in life. Lamenting that such materialistic ambitions culminate in the decay of one’s mental health, but the prosperity of one’s material wealth, Williams asserts that the confines of a hyper-consumerist society ultimately results in the utter isolation and implosion of those who seek the American Dream.this sentence dosen't make sense.
ThroughA social commentary on the effects of the elusive American Dream on one's own psyche, Williams emphasises that the relentless pursuit offameyou didn't mention fame anywhere except when you mentioned Brick was a star, fortune and the American Dream ultimately culminates in the isolation and reduction of upper class individuals. Williams asserts that a constant failure to realise the“inadmissible”never use a quote more than once source of theirfinancial prosperitythis is a pleonasm. you don't need 'financial'. eventuate in the Pollitt'sintrinsicthis word connotes a natural quality to something. i wouldn't consider their feud natural. and bitter feud for “the biggest land on the Mississippi Delta”.
Overall, a solid essay :). Areas for improvement include fixing your contradictory sentences, incorporating more textual evidence (and thus more analysis), and proofreading. Also, make sure not to keep repeating the same words or phrases.
snipHey! I'll give this a go, though take the corrections with a grain of salt as I'm also a current student.
Hi! :D I'm doing lit 3/4 currently, with A Taste of Honey for lit perspectives and The Leopard for close analysis. I'm not super sure if these are common texts to do- but if anyone's happy to give me any kind of feedback that'd be lovely <3. I got high 90s for both of these SACs but I'm not sure how they'll scale!
ATOH-
Shelagh Delaney’s ‘repartee-style dialogue’ andruthlesssome examiners would class this as absolutist language. So, it's best to refrain from early judgements. optimism within the text portrays a socioeconomic position which many theatregoers and critics would have watch out for subjective language- may have been inclined to consider, may have typically, etc.considered ‘filthy’ and ‘rotten’, and which the author herself names ‘drab’ and ‘comfortless’; regardless, Delaney subverts these assumptions to present an ensemble of characters who are animated, lively and ‘witty’, and which live with the chains of the lower classes without having their spirits broken. This is a fairly solid introduction. Perhaps you could expand further on why the lower classes carry this stigma- what separates these people from the intended audience members?
Delaney, who was unashamed of being from the same lower-class part of society, recognised the under-representation of working-class people within British theatre and as part of the ‘kitchen-sink realism’ genre, elected to produce a work that didn’t name them ‘miserable’be careful not to transform this essay into a biographical recount. Topic sentences should encompass an argument.. Jo, a young, poor and pregnant lower-class girl, is ‘valiantly unresigned’ to her fate; Helen, although a ‘semi-whore’, freely chooses to marry Peter to further her own aims; and Geoff, who is subject to perceived gender expectations, finds contentment and purpose by being naturally maternal, in that he ‘likes babies’ and ‘would make somebody a wonderful wife’. Here, we can see Delaney representing the plight of the lower-class as ‘guardedly optimistic’; she uses social taboos such as sex work, miscegenation and homosexuality, in a slightly unrealistic amalgamation, to illustrate the less-desirable characteristics of a lower-class lifestyle You've picked out excellent evidence to make this point. However, I'd encourage you to let your analysis lead you to your ultimate conclusion. Why are these 'less-desirable characteristics'?.
The text is evidence of the poor being able to be ‘proud’, even if their environment is such that more wealthy characters, such as Peter, claim that ‘nobody could live [there]’. Despite condemning Jo to repeatneeds rephrasing the same cyclical nature of poverty as her mother, Delaney doesn’t mark her as doomed, structurallyexcellent point, can you provide evidence/analysis for this?; although pregnant and unmarried girls should be ‘despondent’, Jo’s ‘zest for life’ is untampered, despite some ‘performances’ which are only illustrations of desperation.
Delaney’s deliberate use of a Manchurian accent to typify her characters, as well as short, back-and-forth dialogue, is part of a larger style necessary to any authorsubjective trying to accredit Lancashire’s significance as a backdrop for social commentary and opportunity for art. Delaney is trying to record the ‘wonder of life as she lives it’, which, as not only a female playwright but as a teenager, she struggled to express; not due to lack of writing skill or ‘form’ as some critics utilising patriarchal reductive thinking claimed at the time of production can you include the sentiments of these scholars?, but because of the risk of the play being inaccessible if she did so. Delaney struggled to be taken as seriously as male, middle-aged playwrightsas I mentioned earlier, it's important to keep the focus of this essay on the world of the text- not the playwright. You can definitely talk about the styles/techniques that the playwright adopts to convey your contention, but this should be about it., and as such had to limit her social commentary so as not to be too far isolated. Regardless, she still includes some structural features which point to a larger picture, something else which the author was trying to communicate despite semiotics: the binary between reality and what the characters wish for, as the nature of the prejudice and disparity within the play. When Jo fails to tell her mother that Jimmie, and therefore Helen’s grandchild, ‘will be black’, Delaney is elucidating that Jo is ashamed of her fiancé being ‘black as coal’, and wishes that someone white (such as Geoffrey) was the father, perhaps suggesting why she lets Geof be her ‘big sister’ and part of her household. Also, Helen using Peter for her own ends proveswatch this language that people who live in Lancashire aren’t necessarily left without a way out of ‘this hole’; upon returning from living with Peter, Helen claims that Jo’s flat is a ‘pigsty’, and those that live there are the ‘pigs’. Although life with Peter was only ‘good while it lasted’, Helen had temporarily moved up in wealth, if not in class; and whilst Helen cuts off Jo’s realisation of her dreams when she tries to discuss them, she has at least realised her own, lending credibility to the belief that life in Manchester is not necessarily as bleak as 1950s theatre would have promoted. These juxtapositions demonstrate the truth Delaney was trying to communicate; poverty is not always hopeless excellent analysis of technique. The second half of your paragraph is what you should be developing through a whole one..
The prevailing ‘good cheer’ of the play is at the essence of Delaney’s criticism of society; she places characters in ‘miserable’ contexts, but declares them ‘indestructible’ because of it, not least because that context is Lancashire; Jo, Helen and Geof are emboldened by their ‘lot’ in life precisely because the expectation is that they will fail and become desperately poor, rather than have an ‘appetite for life’ in spite of it. The working class, as portrayed by Delaney, are not condemned by their circumstance as much as they are bolstered by and ‘[survive]’ with it. The author’s documentation of ‘life as she lives it’ will ‘go on’, as will Honey’s characters, for in the face of relentless adversity, Delaney claims, ‘zest for life’ flourishes.Very nice conclusion. I think you've done a good job with the essay. To improve, I'd encourage you to refrain from including irrelevant, biographical facts about the author, and spend more time developing analysis that is central to the world of the text.
The Leopard-
The numerous romantic and ‘sensual’ metaphors, characteristic of Lampedusa’s writing, are inevitably found in all three passages here is a good opportunity to comment on their larger significance.. The ‘instincts’ and ‘love-scenery’ of the Palace at Donnafugata are echoed later in the text in Angelica’s ‘traces of beauty’ and ‘[grace]’, but ultimately Lampedusa places the main passage of ‘sensual anticipation’ in a part of the text at which this ‘love’ is a last hurrah of the ‘old way of things’; the ‘instincts’ which had ‘awoken’ were never so intense again throughout the novel excellent synthesising. The death of the social class which were enjoying ‘that autumn in Donnafugata’ is foreshadowed continuously by the author, to remind us of the ‘ephemeral’ ‘grandeur’ of the aristocracy, and its looming and inevitable ‘[surrender]’ to ‘Garibaldi’.
The Kingdom of Two Sicilies, or the ‘lonely faithless land’, is eventually lost to the ‘Risorgimento’, and quickly its ‘[customs]’ were abandoned for the ‘new way of things’; as Fabrizio had expected, the ‘traces of Donnafugata’ were ‘rubbed off’. This leaves him as the last ‘Leopard’ and ‘Prince of Salina’; here, the author is creating a representation of his own life, in which he was the last ‘Prince of Lampedusa’, part of an ‘unlucky generation, swung between the old and the new’while you are connecting evidence seamlessly, it is important that you take the time to analyse the significance of the language used. Golden rule: don't let the evidence do the analysis for you..
The decay of old social structures also allows the author to demonstrate the decline of the role of the Church within society; ‘religious fervor’ soon gives way to disrespect of the Salina name, when the ‘Relics’ are found to be fraudulent. This happens almost ‘unconsciously’ to most characters, but Lampedusa sows seeds of doubt about the ‘prestige’ of the Church early on by reducing Father Pirrone to a ‘sheep-dog’, in this way elucidating the inevitable failure of Roman Catholicism to stay as relevant to the meritocracy as it was to the aristocracynice V+V statement, but how did you get here? Tease out the metaphor of the 'sheep-dog.'. Religion does not catalyse or contribute to the loss of power of men like Fabrizio; rather, Lampedusa constructs it as a symptom of the dismantling of old ‘[customs]’ in favour of the ‘arrival’ of the Unification in Sicily, which he neither upholds nor condemns; instead opting to evokein the audiencean emotional responsetofor the loss of the ‘slightly shabby grandeur’ of the ‘Kingdom of Two Sicilies’. Through this, the author seeks to record a series of events as relevant to him in 1950 as it was to the real aristocracy in 1860 in Sicily, nearly 100 years prior.continue to evaluate whether these biographical references are contributing anything important to your analysis The meritocracy, like Angelica, is ‘[hazily enthusiastic]’ about these changes, and ‘[averse]’ to the ‘old’ social constructs. As a nod to the eventual victory of the meritocracy, Lampedusa puts the lasting ‘characteristics’ of Angelica’s personality down to Tancredi, a proponent of the Revolution, and attributes her death to the ‘illness’ ‘secreted deep in her blood’.
Here Lampedusa suggests that Angelica’s ‘meek and slighted youth’ has affected her, despite ‘[rubbing] off’ the ‘accent and manners’ of her hometown. Her ‘camouflage’ ultimately does not provide her with any protection from the death of the aristocracy, under which she was born into as property and into which she married; in essence, she lived as part of the aristocracy and becomes a ‘wretched spectre’ later in life because of it, implying that her ‘youth’ eventually is the cause of her death. The malaise felt throughout the entire text ensures that no characters find ‘a moment’s peace’, and are always ‘restless’; although current power structures ‘[numb] them with fear’. The Prince’s lack of ‘[reproval]’ in terms of the Revolution ultimately mirrors the equivalent reaction of Lampedusa to his situation. All events in the text are inevitable. Again, you've done quite a good job with this CPA. As I've noted throughout my correction, you are using excellent quotes to support your overall interpretation. However, to strengthen the quality of your work, I'd strongly encourage you to spend more time analysing the particular language used. Don't allow the evidence to do this for you.
Hey guys! With the LIT exam right around the corner, I'm in a bit of a pickle. I chose Literature over English mainly because my school really gambles with English teachers (and my blocking wouldn't have given me the best results unfortunately) and I love reading classic literature over articles. However, I really don't have great vocabulary or syntax or anything really and would like some help in marking my essays and giving me a realistic range (my teacher is unfortunately unavailable to do this!) I've been reading some top essay examples from previous exams, and I know there's no way I can compare but I'm hoping to score as well as possible.
Prompt: Greed is condemned in this novella. This is the ultimate goal. Discuss.
----
In the critically acclaimed novella ‘Heart of Darkness’ by Joseph Conrad, the systematic annexation and exploitation of Africa is recognised as the result of the rapacity used as the foundation of European colonisation strong opening. It can be claimed that the destabilisation of Kurtz in the form of his moral descent was precipitated by the corruption of materialism prevalent in European society. Furthering materialistic denunciationthe denunciation of materalism is the wastefulness of imperialistic efforts made in colonisation and the contradiction posed by Marlow who reprimands the treatment of natives but simultaneously worships the works of Kurtz. Take the opportunity to close the introduction with the main point delivered by Conrad. That is, provide your reader with some kind of direction for the rest of the essay.
When embarking on a journey for “ivory”, a symbol of wealth and power obtained by the complexity of exploitation you need to first analyse the implications of 'ivory' before you classify it as a symbol of X, it is revealed that the motives of Kurtz lies within the influence of Western Consumerism. The acknowledgement that his–or even Marlow’s–journey did not begin on the borders of Africa but in the heart of the “sepulchral city” of European society is in cognisance of motives stemming from the societal differences of Imperialismhow do we know this?. Later surfaced in the novella is the concept of wealth equalling personal value when Marlow is privy to the disapproval “her [The Intended’s] people” had on Kurtz. This results in an “impatience of comparative poverty” driving him right into the “heart of darkness,” symbolic for the revelation of corruption and avarice when journeying into the Congo again, let the language lead you to this conclusion.. Kurtz’s inability to appeal to the parents of his Intended due to his lack of material wealth exemplifies the standard necessity of status and affluence to be deemed acceptable in late 1800s European society. It becomes transparentopt for a different choice of words. Remember that clarity > overt sophistication that greed is an extension of values perpetuated by Western Civilisation and is practiced by the Intended’s parents as a means to criticise the inequality surfaced by European class structure.Try and entwine more of Conrad in this paragraph.
In concomitance to the “wanton smash up” observed throughout his “oblique” descent down a hill, Marlow is confronted with a "sordid" reality to the wastefulness of Western savagery. The guise of “philanthropic desire” depicted upon a purposeless “vast, artificial hole” manifests in the historical deformation that is Imperialism. Built upon the principle of degeneration, a civilisation forced to conform to the nature of sophistication perceived by the “white man” must withstand the exploitations of their people, their wealth, and their resources ensure that you are analysing and not retelling. From the onset of the novella, Marlow subtly reveals his perspective to listeners upon the Nellie, as well as readers of the story, that “the conquest of the earth…is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much,” condemning European aggression to be the economic rape of an unsuspecting nation explain how you get to this point. At the base station, Marlow encounters an unpalatable awareness of the unjust treatment of natives. The image Conrad conjures of seeing “every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope,” is inescapable to Marlow as his sudden relocation simply enforces the viewing of natives “clinging to the earth…in all the attitudes of pain, abandonment, and despair.” They worked until they became “sickened, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and rest.” Once their duty was completed, the African natives were left to die. The backward ideology of civilising an innocent continent great that you've identified the resounding V+V. Can you flesh this out further? is strengthened by Marlow’s sarcastic responses to the “high and just proceedings” where men were sent “into the depths of darkness, and in return came a precious trickle of ivory.” This “darkness” Conrad depicts is symbolic for the depths of greed and exploitation European “pilgrims” (nicknamed in irony for the proclamation that they’re anything but)?] have reached for even the slightest amount of social advancement in their Western civilisation. However, juxtaposing the literal wastefulness of European implements in Africa comes the desultory efforts of the Accountant, whose affectations are of no larger purpose. Taking it upon himself to “teach” the native women about the station, difficulty arose in the aspect in which “she had a distaste for the work.” Evidently, Conrad subtly opposeshow do we know this? Tease out the language? this system of conquest exploitation and uncovers that in the blindness of avidity for ivory, colonialists fail to illustrate a picture bigger than “to make money, of course.”
Marlow thus accomplishes a contradiction; despite condemning the scathing treatment blasted upon natives who “didn’t deserve this”<start a new sentence> Marlow remains indifferent and almost infatuated by the prospect of knowing Kurtz, their greatest exploiter. A narrative description for this “ascetic” sailor is challenged by the nonchalance in reaction to the mistreated natives but clear appraisal for the “miracle” of the Accountant. Concomitant to the wastefulness of Imperial intents, the Accountant is rendered unnecessary to the events of the novel. The information on Kurtz could have been delivered to Marlow by anyone, but Conrad utilizes his character to be symbolic explain how this is soof the importance placed on the profit margin. Despite the lie of colonisation based on the forefront of “weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways” through the introduction of Christianity, no such enquiry is made. There is no mention of a priest of preacher through the entirety of the novel, but there is material gain prevalent in the representation of the Accountant. Marlow becomes infatuated with the economic idolization of Kurtz (** insert quote maybe **) as brought about by the Accountant, fortifying the efforts made by Conrad to acknowledge the lies of Imperialism at the peak of European colonisation excellent. He further debates the confliction of an imperialist benefactor who morally opposes the conquest of a nation, but fantasizes upon their greatest exploiter through Marlow’s unwitting endorsement of Western capitalistic normative values where a person’s acceptability is determined by their wealth, or as perceived in the Congo, the amount of ivory they bring in provide evidence in this sentence. Kurtz is glanced upon from the top of an incredibly high pedestal built on the backs of the savage “tribes” who participated, seemingly unknowingly, in the “raid” of their country. Though Kurtz was an ordinary man, he could not be “judged” as such due to his success in delivering the “precious trickle of ivory”. However, readers are positioned to witness Kurtz’s moral descent when made aware of the extent of his desperationhone in on this occurence to grasp every last trickle of ivory. The Russian recalls a time where he would have shot him "unless [he] gave him the ivory” justified by the notion that “there was nothing on earth to prevent him from killing whom he jolly well pleased.” It is later revealed through the Russian’s recollection of Kurtz that every “ivory hunt” led him to “forget himself amongst these people [the natives]” thus displaying while this language helps you transition from analysis --> V+V, you are letting it take you from evidence --> V+V. Try and adhere to evidence--> analysis --> V+Vthe role of greed in Imperialist ideology and its inescapability. The corruption and depravity of sensibility as initiated by a sudden exposure to power and wealth is used by Conrad to ultimately bare truth to the inequality and injustices brought about by colonialism thus condemning greed to a shallow destabilisation of morality.
I think you've done a solid job with this essay. You've articulated some excellent ideas throughout. To improve, I'd encourage you to work more on the analysis of language. It is important that you don't bypass this step, and move quickly between evidence and V+V statement. Further, it would be great if you could incorporate and evaluate some of the arguments used by scholars.
snipthankyou so much!!!