ATAR Notes: Forum

VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE Literature => Topic started by: charmanderp on November 12, 2012, 08:38:56 pm

Title: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: charmanderp on November 12, 2012, 08:38:56 pm
If you want feedback on an essay, post it here! The compilation thread is for 'model' essays'.

Title: Re: Literature submission and marking
Post by: pi on November 12, 2012, 09:12:21 pm
English work submission and marking

This is a place for all English, ESL, English Language and Literature students to post their work for comment and criticism.

:P
Title: Re: Literature submission and marking
Post by: charmanderp on November 12, 2012, 09:27:10 pm
Re: English Language submission and marking

:P
Title: Re: Literature Essay Compilation Thread
Post by: chisel on October 05, 2013, 02:30:24 pm
JANE EYRE - passage analysis [Jane in red-room, Homeless Jane in the lead up to Moor House & Introduction of Mr Rochester on horse

ANY HELP/THOUGHTS WOULD BE APPRECIATED GUYS, cheers  :)

Passage 1 of Charlotte Bronte’s novel, Jane Eyre, immediately establishes a desolate mood through the description of “the red room” as “a square chamber, very seldom slept in.” This mood of isolation is accentuated through Bronte’s detailed descriptions of the chamber’s interior, detailing the “blinds being always drawn down” which evokes an ominous mood through darkness having evident connotations of gloom and despair. The room “was chill, because it seldom had a fire,” and also “it was silent…” Bronte here further highlights the isolated state in which Jane has been placed, and moreover, her thorough descriptions of the “week’s quiet dust” on the mirrors and furniture additionally enhance this mood. Jane is not only subjected to an isolated state, Bronte has intended to emphasise her inferiority through the descriptions of Jane’s surroundings. The “massive pillars of mahogany” coupled with “the bed that rose before me [Jane]” together convey this notion of Jane’s fragile, weak demeanour. Evidently, there is a fundamental notion of entrapment and restriction present as Jane is forced to stay in the red-room, incomparable to anywhere else in terms of restriction as she states, “no jail was ever more secure.”

Similarly, the notion of entrapment is somewhat highlighted in passage 3, however it is rather mental restriction than physical. Jane’s isolation, once again, evokes a “sense of desolation – total prostration of hope” for her. This, along with Bronte’s inclusion of Jane’s abundant rhetoric – “For who will receive me?” – creates confusion which symbolically reflects her fragmented state of mind as a result of her departure from Thornfield and thus, the man she loves. The disintegration of Jane’s mental state symbolically causes her entrapment, as her thoughts are temporarily restricted to negative ones, “I should die before morning.” Even the vast array of “fields” surrounding her, which are generally associated with a sense of liberty, are described as “wild and unprotective” thus, it is an undesirable sense of freedom.

Passage 3 adequately conveys Bronte’s views on the concepts of persistence and resilience through her characterisation of Jane in a moment of despair. Initially, Jane is portrayed negatively, with the majority of her thoughts being pessimistic – “shall I be an outcast again this night?” which Bronte disapproves of. Bronte incorporates the melancholy weather such as the “rushing rain” to emphasise the miserable position Jane is succumbed to, while the symbolism of colours is evident as the “black soil” enhances the ominous mood created as “darkness” approaches. Moreover, Jane states, “colour had faded with the daylight” which reflects the darkness of her situation as Bronte associates colour with life, which is beginning to fade. Contrastingly to this negative depiction of Jane, Bronte creates a pivotal opposing moment at the point in which “a light sprang up.” Evidently, light has connotations of purity and hope, therefore, in this specific case, the light symbolises a “forlorn hope” for Jane in her time of despair. The continual appearance of the light caused Jane to “drag her exhausted limbs” towards it. Bronte utilises the word “dragged” to accentuate Jane’s exhaustion. Furthermore, Bronte endorses Jane’s resilience as she “…fell twice; but rose and rallied her faculties” and also validates her persistence and perseverance to find the source of the light, as Jane states, “I must gain it [the light].”

Passage 2 subtly exemplifies the notion of male dominance, whilst simultaneously introducing the dominant male character of Mr. Rochester. Similar to the other passages, passage 2 depicts Jane once more in an isolated state in the “absolute hush” surrounding her. Upon the arrival of Rochester, dominance is immediately asserted as he demands Jane – “you must just stand on one side.” Bronte’s use of the word “must” along with a lack of general politeness indicates her attempt to convey Rochester as a domineering figure. Moreover, the exclamatory syntax utilised in “Down, Pilot!” as a command towards the dog further emphasises Rochester’s dominant nature. In stark contrast, in the same passage Jane is portrayed as an obedient, polite figure as she obeys not only Rochester’s commands without hesitation, but the dog also – “I obeyed him [the dog] and walked down to the traveller [Rochester].”

Jane’s ‘imprisonment’ in the red room of passage 1 was a consequential punishment for her assertive actions prior towards Mrs Reed, her benefactress. This is indicative of Bronte characterising Mrs Reed as someone who reflects society’s conventions through ensuring women remain passive and submissive, both qualities which Bronte strongly disapproves of. This dominant figure in Mrs Reed is somewhat comparable to the dominant Rochester in passage 2: one reflecting society’s conventions towards assertive women, the other towards a dominant male, and in turn gender inequality.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: charmanderp on October 05, 2013, 05:51:05 pm
ANY HELP/THOUGHTS WOULD BE APPRECIATED GUYS, cheers  :)

I think the analysis itself is quite good. Only issue is that the paragraphs seem disjointed from each other. Don't read the passages in isolation and then attempt to synthesise an overarching reading in your conclusion. They should be analysed logically to build some kind of argument/contention by drawing links between the paragraphs, demonstrating linguistic patterns, etc.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: zerbe6 on November 01, 2013, 09:36:56 am
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.
Albee’s allusion to George and Martha Washington through Martha and George 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. 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”, she makes it clear that she blames George’s failure to progress within the college for their circumstances. Martha’s claim of discontentedness becomes critical as later in the play she reveals that “only one man has ever made [her] happy”. The fact that man is George shatters one of the central precepts of the play (that Martha really is seeking escape) and gives the audience pause 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 counters that their son is “a son who is deep in his gut sorry to have been born”, 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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: maturegambino on November 01, 2013, 11:19:37 am
I've attached a passage analysis for Jane Eyre
If the passages are needed, I'll upload them  :)

Thoughts/feedback would be awesome
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: thecreeker on November 02, 2013, 07:31:43 pm
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 the rigid reality of the changing world.

With the lyrical tone to 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. McCarthy places the scene amongst the backdrop of “high headlands” and “wind tattered fire” in addition to the imagery of the wild horses to reinforce the untouched segment of Mexico that remains 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, in 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 in the brutality of the act of follow.  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 Blevins as he utilises the diminutive adjectives “small” and “ragged” to detail a figure that all but “vanish[es]” from the world. McCarthy marriages 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 novel is misplaced within 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 throughout All the Pretty Horses. In both passages two and three the reader envisions 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 “strange land, strange sky “of passage two.  In the repetition of ‘strange”, McCarthy reestablishes the connotations 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 are embedded within humanity and an individual is powerless to change it.

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 images 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.  The melodic tone utilized 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 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 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.


Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: mseleanor on November 03, 2013, 09:48:29 am
Close analysis to Euripides' The Bacchae

If anyone could correct this I'd be very greatful :)

In ‘The Bacchae’, Euripides explores the contrary concepts of nature and the human construct of civilization to necessitate the holistic fulfilment of all elements of one's human psyche and physical form.

Passage One demonstrates the disdainful pride inherent in the advocacy of civilization. The forceful way in which Pentheus labels Dionysian worship on Mount Cithaeron as an “astounding scandal” establishes the rage with which he conducts his rule of Thebes. The militant tone in which he resolves to “hunt out” Bacchic worshippers that includes even his own mother, Agave, suggest a tyrannical leader threatening destruction to any form of conduct that disrupts his understanding of order. The images of metropolis evoked by “iron fetters” and “walls”, in which Pentheus wishes to entrap Dionysus, attribute Pentheus’ stringent determination to restore order to Thebes to civilization itself, an image through which Euripides portrays it as rigid and oppressively inhibiting. Ironically, after the spiteful soliloquy, Pentheus’ profession: “is not his arrogance an outrage?” further paints the character as excessively prideful and thus embodying the extreme, excessively cruel characteristics of nomos (civilization). Concurrently,  the dramatic irony Euripides here establishes foreshadows Pentheus’ demise, his own arrogance already deluding him to the reality of his own state.

Passages One and Three reflect the dangers inherent in the oppression Pentheus enacts, particularly the sexual repression of women at a societal level. The deluded pride exhibited by Pentheus is intertwined with his vigilant repression of women. The possessive reference to “our women” connotes ownership and a dominant sense of male superiority as he conveys blatant disgust towards thoughts of their “gadding about” and submission to “lecherous men”, language that belittles the grounds of the female rebellion. However it is Pentheus’ own doing that results in his ironic fate by female destruction. Escaped from the oppressive rule of the city of Thebes, the Bacchae are burst into another extreme. Their violent murder of Pentheus is illustrated by vivid imagery evoked by descriptions of their “hands thick with blood” and their “tossing and catching” of Pentheus’ body in Passage Three, demonstrating the savagery and brutality inherent in the complete, rebellious submission into the primal forces of nature. Yet it is as a result of Pentheus’ rigid imposition of order that forced women from one extreme to another – from stringent subjugation to this sheer embodiment of sparagmos. The dramatic irony of Pentheus donned in female garb in Passage Two signifies how stifling order breeds the very conduct it tries to repress in perhaps its most extreme form possible; the transition from Passage One, where Pentheus is militantly condemnatory of their “outrageous Bacchism” and Passage Two where Pentheus is dressed as a “frenzied Bacchic woman” reflect the inherent inability of civilization to repress elements of nature.   

Particularly through Passages One and Three, Euripides criticizes the rigid notions of civilization. Pentheus’ prideful disdain for Dionysian worship is founded upon dictatorial want for absolute order, relative to his personal attachment to nomos. His rejection of Dionysus’ gift of wine reflects his own extremity, while his disdain for Dionysus’ “golden hair” and “scented ringlets” further reflect the rigidity of both Pentheus and wider Theban society. Through this, Euripides criticizes the oppression and gender normativity characteristic of the human construct of nomos, whereby Dionysus’ androgyny and liberating gifts that challenge Thebes’ strict hierarchical and patriarchal structure. Indeed, the destructive potentiality in the converse is revealed, most poignantly in Passage Three, yet Euripides utilizes this to illustrate the inevitable consequence of militant oppression: destructive rebellion. Were such women able to indulge their primal human desires in accordance with other elements of their lives in Theban society, balance would have prevented such violent extremity.

Passages One and Two demonstrate the need to fulfil one’s inherent sexual, animalistic tendencies. The transition of Pentheus’ state between Passages One and Two is stark. The dialogue and relations between Pentheus and Dionysus in Passage Two reveal Pentheus’ surfacing sexuality. Previously forceful in expressing his fervent disgust for Bacchic activity in labelling it an “astounding scandal”, Pentheus’ voyeuristic curiosity piercing his militant self-control can be seen in Passage Two where is he “dressed as a Bacchic devotee”, demonstrating the strength with which his sexual curiosity is working to thrive, relinquishing his pride to observe the Bacchic activity. Dionysus ‘ gentle tending to Pentheus when he realizes that: “A curl has slipped out” and Pentheus’ request: “you dress me please” suggest sexual enticement. The image of Pentheus becoming “entirely subservient” to Dionysus further imply that is he sexually allured by him, figuratively reflecting his succumbing to the sexuality he so stridently sought to repress. His literal denial of Dionysus as a God seen in Passage One where he blatantly states that “he’s dead” represents the mental and physical denial of his natural want for what Dionysus embodies: wine, dance, and sexual liberation. Thus, Dionysus’ rage reflected in his innocuous enticement of Pentheus to his death represents the flared sexuality within Pentheus that will come to vengefully consume him, having been denied so long as an integral element of the human psyche. Images of Agaüe “foaming at the mouth” while her “rolling eyes were wild” connote godly possession. However, metaphorically, it is the repression of her natural want for release that, unfulfilled, has consumed her ability to see reason, the societal rebellion in which she partakes emblematic of this notion at an individual level.

Passage Two further demonstrates the paradoxical nature of the rationality Pentheus attaches to his understanding of Theban nomos. The inversion of Pentheus’ resolve to “hunt” in Passage One to himself being subjugated to the vengeful Dionysus in Passage Two, demonstrated through the stage directions describing him as “entirely subservient to Dionysus”, reflect his deteriorating hold on rationality in the process of his ironic quest to restore reason to Thebes, a notion governed by the human concept of nomos. Pentheus’ pensive-sounding remark, “I see two suns” reflects his “dazed” state of mind, where his mental obliviousness to what actually constitutes reason is transcending the mind and manifesting into his physical reality. Having previously so forcefully attempted to uphold the understanding of reason he had used in governing Thebes, such extreme rationality is revealed as thus itself irrational through Pentheus’ loss of reality, his conflicting mental state rendering him deluded.

Through Passages One and Two, Euripides illustrates the importance of fulfilling one’s own natural human desires for release and sensuality, an element of primal nature that is integral to the complete human psyche. The fate that befalls Pentheus and Agaüe reveals how the want for the natural engagement seen as subordinate to civilization has, unsatisfied, consumed them. The destructive potentiality revealed in the “frenzied Bacchic women” indeed necessitates some discipline as opposed to complete submission into one’s primal self. Yet, Euripides concerns himself more with illustrating how the inevitable societal rebellion of such women was emblematic of the inevitable self-destruction when one leaves unmapped this element of the human psyche. The image of Dionysus as a “bull” in the eyes of Pentheus heightens his representation of a force of nature, symbolic of the primal elements of the human psyche that Euripides necessitates a balanced, holistic fulfilment of.

Word count: 1161
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Excelsior on November 04, 2013, 05:26:03 pm
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!  :)

Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Excelsior on November 04, 2013, 06:08:44 pm
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 tone toof 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, in through 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 act of tofollow.  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 Blevins as he utilises you 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 novel is aremisplaced 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!  :)



Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: zerbe6 on November 04, 2013, 07:07:47 pm
Thank you Excelsior. I appreciate your feedback.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: master_revan on November 05, 2013, 03:16:53 pm
Ooh If I could get some feedback on this for The French Lieutenant's Woman, I'd really appreciate it!


“A planned world … is a dead world”.
Fowles’ The French Lieutenant’s Woman reveals Fowles’ argument that it is the realization of an individuals’ truest desires which allow them to “begin to live” and experience a life of authenticity; even if such a decision leads to “an affront to provincial convention”, Fowles suggests that such a challenge to convention may be unavoidable and even necessary in order for the authentic life to exist.

Charles’ struggles against the restrictions which have been “conditioned” into him via societal and cultural pressures in an attempt to realize his desires towards Sarah. Presented as a man “struggling to overcome history”, Charles’ rejection of Mr. Freeman’s offer of a career in trade initially reveals the obeisance that he has towards the societal expectation of the era in which he lives. Indeed, that Charles is asked to “pay” the “best of his past self” and that his decision to Reject Mr. Freeman’s offer is influenced by the “common human instinct to preserve human identity” reveals an individual who is arrested by the societal notions of his age: the notion that trade is an inferior profession for a gentleman of the likes of Charles. Charles, however, is critiqued by Fowles whilst simultaneously having his decisions treated with a degree of empathy by the authorial voice. Fowles’ suggestion that Charles is a “poor clown” is suggestive of a degree of pity being attributed to Charles’ actions – rather than being an individual fully aware of the degree to which he is a pawn of the societal prerogative of his time, Charles’ actions are instead “foolish”, lacking “insight” and decidedly uninformed. Fowles also critiques him when Charles relaxes and conjures up a “consoling image” – here, Fowles tempts the reader with seemingly noble, authentic and honorable ideals: “Hope? Courage? Determination?”  before mocking Charles and stating “I am afraid not. He saw a bowl of milk punch and champagne”. In this way, Fowles critiques the negligence of choices and decisions which would benefit an individual’s life in lieu of following the customs which an individual’s societal milieu dictates as being the ‘proper’ manner of acting. The utilization of a first person authorial voice (“I am afraid not”), coupled with the progression to a probing second person urging (“you have just made some decision in which your personal benefit … has not been allowed to interfere?”, and finally to a series of imperative commands to the reader (“do not dismiss Charles’ state of mind as a mere conditioning”) serve to initially draw the reader into an awareness of the authorial consciousness of the narrator, before allowing the reader to realize that just as they may be unjustified in judging Charles due to his ignorance of the degree of his societal obeisance, the imperative urging of “see him for what he is… and even though he does not realize it” has within it the suggestion that the reader themselves may “not realize” the degree that their own societal pressures influence their own lives. Indeed, Fowles’ questioning – “you have just turned down a tempting offer in applied science in order to continue your academic teaching?” – cements his notion that the reader is perhaps just as liable to be critiqued as Charles is; and within such a suggestion lies implicit the urge to be aware of the degree that this occurs in the reader’s own life.

The struggles between individual desire and societal convention are evident within the characters’ lives of the novel, and Fowles suggests that “knowledge and insight” in addition to the making of authentic choices, is the means which an individual may adapt socially and truly “begin to live”. Charles’ initial belief in the “doctrine of the survival of the fittest” result in him being “trapped” for such an initial belief leads to the realization that the “practice” means challenging the notions he holds so dear. Indeed, the suggestion of cold when Charles “felt cold, chilled to his innermost marrow by an icy rage against Mr. Freeman” reveals the cruel and seemingly heartless nature that the conflict between societal decorum and individual desire can take. To challenge that which is expected of one is to leave the warmth and safety which the subservience to societal expectation has. Once the challenge is made, however, it can be liberating, yet “repugnant”. Charles, by the end of the novel, has progressed from someone who is acutely aware of the “mealy mouthed hypocrisy” and the “adulation of all that is false in our natures” which marks the “age” in which Charles lives in. Fowles has ensure that after making authentic choice and experiencing the consequence, Charles now is closer to being an individual who fully realizes his desires, no longer to be mercilessly critiqued by the authorial voice.

Fowles ultimately suggests that even in authorship the breaking of convention and planning is a necessity in order to allow true freedoms to exist. The first-person authorial intrusions stating that “I have pretended until now to know my characters’ minds and innermost thoughts” serve to make the reader aware of the authorial consciousness and then position the reader to align themselves with the author’s perspective and commentary on the characters within the novel. When Fowles explains that “we wish to create worlds as real as, but other than the world that is” and then uses this as justification as to why “we [authors] cannot plan”, the freedoms that exist in ‘reality’ are a result of being able to make authentic, unconstrained choice which may challenge the conventions of the time – it is our ability to challenge our expectations which grant us freedom; in the same way, only if Fowles allows his characters to not only break the social conventions of their times, but also the literary conventions which dictate that the author must be fully aware of their characters’ mindsets do the characters attain any sense of freedom. The fact that “Sarah would have never … delivered a chapter of revelation” despite the author’s intentions of having a chapter “unfolding Sarah’s true state of mind” grants Sarah the character a mimetic quality in that the freedoms of reality are granted to her in the realm of the narrative structure. 
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: jeanweasley on November 06, 2013, 09:41:08 am
Thoughts on the paragraphs below? I tried... I hope this is better than my first attempt.

The internal focalisation of Briony in Passage One, ‘she raised one hand and flexed its fingers and wondered’ as well as her ingenuous question about the reality of life and her own identity: ‘was everyone else really alive as she was?’ is exhibited through the stream of consciousness style which mirrors the modernist writing of Virginia Woolf, but also bears similarities with Jane Austen’s omniscient third person narration evident in Ian McEwan’s inclusion of Catherine Morland in the epigraph, cementing Briony’s ability to construct a storyworld in which she is the highest form of authority, and therefore unable to achieve the deliverance she has so long attempted. Moreover, the aesthetic descriptions in Passage One and Two and the spatial references, in Passage Three ‘back streets of Bloomsbury’ and ‘Inner Circle of Regent’s Park’ compounds McEwan’s credibility as an author and also illustrates his ability to create a functional storyworld in which he is able to elicit cognitive and perceptual responses from the reader.

Briony’s ‘white muslin dress’ amalgamated with her constant questions about life and the long descriptive sentences ‘the mystery was in the instant before it moved…when her intention took effect’ and her short and abrupt musings, ‘it was like a wave breaking’ depicts Briony’s freedom in dissecting her identity, but also showcases her retainment of childish innocence where she has positioned herself centre of an incomprehensible adult world. The availability of time in Passage One contrasts with that of the second extract, where autonomy of free thinking is replaced with solitude and lack of time; the militant imagery of the nurses’ ‘uniform’ and strict obedience to structure ‘under Sister Drummond’ echoes the callous treatment of soldiers in war, attesting to the erosion of identity that the war has created in the soldiers paralleling Briony’s new vocation; furthermore, war has engulfed the opportunity for expressing one’s self where ‘their previous lies were becoming indistinct’ and ‘their minds…emptied to some extent’, and soldiers and nurses alike must defer to a greater authority who treat them not as equals but as numbers fulfilling a purpose.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: maree271 on November 06, 2013, 10:22:11 am
Literally think everyone here deserves a 50 in lit!! Wow these essays are insane.

Any tips on how to write the entire analysis or things that I want to write in the time frame? Should I skip things that are not important to make sure I cover all 3 passages or should I just talk about smaller things in greater detail??? Any advice? :(
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: availn on November 06, 2013, 05:44:38 pm
Ugh it's so hard to write a lot in an hour. This is not even 700 words, but what else do I need to work on here?


   Bronte’s characterisation of Jane in her novel channels her highly critical view on Victorian era society. Throughout Jane Eyre, Jane is assaulted constantly be the rigid societal structure, which inhibits her passionate personality, and contains her autonomy.

   As a child, Jane is powerless to all others in Gateshead. She is abused particularly by her “young master” John Reed, who is fully aware of the almost all-encompassing extent of his power: he recognises the book Jane reads to be his own property, “for they ARE mine; all the house belongs to [him], or will do in a few years.” Through this Bronte highlights the injustices in both the societal and gender norms – Mrs Reed is later powerless to John due to her supposedly inferior sex, while Jane is helpless in Gateshead due to her status of a dependant orphan.
   John can hit Jane with impunity, and because of it Jane calls him “like a murderer… a slave-driver… the Roman Emperors!” Here, Bronte condemns those who abuse the lower classes as criminals, and makes use of the historic slave drivers and Roman Emperors to declare prophetically that such treatment will come to an end. Jane’s “abuse” of John, however, is seemingly fit for further punishment, which she also resists. Such resistance is evidently not characteristic of women in Bronte’s time, when women were supposed to be subservient and passive. Therefore, Jane’s passion is punished with her scarring event in the Red Room; Bronte contends that such inequality, in both gender and class, should not exist, through her depictions of the unjust cruelty spawned by such societal divides.

   Such divides are shown again later, through Mr Rochester’s guests’ opinionated views on governesses. Despite Jane’s presence, Miss Ingram speaks damningly of Jane’s lower class, and sees herself to be better than Jane. To the reader, this is false: Bronte emphasizes Miss Ingram’s beauty and Jane’s plainness, but an aversion is formed in the reader to the very negatively portrayed behaviours of Miss Ingram. Miss Ingram also judges Adele, and assumes it would be better to send her to school, as the alternative would be to employ a “detestable” or “ridiculous” governess. Throughout the tirade, Jane both “feaded” and “hoped” for Mr Rochester’s notice. Bronte condemns his continued shunning of Jane as a product of class differences, and Miss Ingram’s assumption to “see all the faults of [Jane’s] class”, as it is made clear to the reader that whatever Jane’s faults are are not born of her status, and that she is at least the equal of Miss Ingram, but only inferior in the eyes of society due to her circumstance.

   The conclusion to Jane Eyre depicts an ideal – where Jane is not suppressed by society, or indeed her partner. Marrying Mr Rochester as an equal, she claims “No woman was ever nearer to her mate than am mine.” Bronte uses Jane’s marriages as a model, as most marriages of her time were a reduction to a contract, with the wife in a way belonging to the husband. Again, the inequality of the genders is hinted at by Bronte, and the wholesome marriage between equals contrasts with the previously proposed marriages, where Mr Rochester would have had Jane as a subservient mistress, or where St John would have turned Jane into a “useful tool”. Initially, the equality between Mr Rochester and Jane may appear to be due to Mr Rochester’s blinding, but this is shown not to be the case, as he later recovers from his dependence on Jane. This dependence is contrasted to Jane’s at Gateshead, as he never “claimed these services” with “shame” or “humiliation”. Rather, it enables Jane to put her artistry to use – the artistry St John would have quashed to create his ideal “missionary’s wife”
   Bronte thus presents Jane as the answer to the then prevalent “Women Question” of the Victorian era. Throughout the novel, Jane methodically overcomes the class and gender biases put forward, and establishes an ideal of equality for society to consider. Without the prejudices of a parted society, Bronte shows how happiness is achievable through a sustained conversation of equals in marriage, which allows “perfect concord” as its result.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: drmockingbird on November 08, 2013, 08:14:38 pm
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.

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.


Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: charmanderp on November 08, 2013, 09:10:52 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: DJA on November 09, 2013, 09:34:06 am
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. 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 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.

   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. The disconnect 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”.  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 mother’s 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.

   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 the profoundly damaging impact on the “whole ear of Denmark” – an obscuring and dimming 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. 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.



Would love any feedback!  :) I am doing Literature 1/2 currently and preparing for 3/4 next year. We did Hamlet this year.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: drmockingbird on November 09, 2013, 01:30:31 pm
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.


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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: charmanderp on November 09, 2013, 02:14:46 pm

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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: drmockingbird on November 11, 2013, 04:51:49 pm
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 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.

Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: charmanderp on November 11, 2013, 06:45:34 pm
I've tried doing this for the introduction - is this a bit better?

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.


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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: achre on November 11, 2013, 07:36:56 pm
I've tried doing this for the introduction - is this a bit better?

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.
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  :)
Do try to be clear in your expression though, maybe a good start could be using language a bit more sparingly - your repudiates and abnegations and paragons. It's an easy habit to pick up but a hard one to kick. They're great to have and they will score you brownie points - but don't sacrifice your clarity for the sake of exactness!
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: maddimarvel on November 15, 2013, 06:44:01 pm
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 mother’s 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!!  ;)
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: DJA on November 15, 2013, 09:10:25 pm
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!!  ;)

Thanks for the comments in the essay and the advice. It is greatly appreciated.  ;D Especially considering  I have my 1/2 Literature exam in like 5 days time--Very Nervous!! We are doing two passage analysis essays-one on Hamlet and one on Tobias Wolff's short story collection.

Yep-I definitely can't write as much in exam time. Will have to cut down. Thanks for the reminder.

Syntactical construction has always been a bit of a sore point for me. I think I'll sit down and check out these in the play again-iambic pentameter, rhythm flow and all that. I'll try and remember to incorporate it in the exam :) haha


Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: cute on April 18, 2014, 09:30:18 pm
This is my first Close Analysis on The Tempest, hopefully I'm able to get some feedback :)

I know it's way too short, I'm getting there :P

Spoiler
The Tempest – William Shakespeare

Act I, Scene II – Lines 88 – 132
Act III, Scene II – Lines 41 – 73
Act III, Scene III – Lines 57 – 90

The use of religious language in Passages One and Three explores Prospero’s tyrannical rule of the island on a non-physical level. In Passage One, Shakespeare’s depiction of Antonio as a ‘sinner of his memory’ illustrates the relationship between Prospero and his brother and Prospero’s view of himself as a superhuman being and, perhaps, how he expects Miranda to perceive him. Through Prospero’s further description of Antonio’s ‘evil nature’, Shakespeare condemns Antonio’s usurping of the throne during ‘the bettering of [Prospero’s] mind’. This encompasses Shakespeare’s inherent appreciation for knowledge which presents itself in all three passages. This appreciation is further explored during Prospero’s proclamation that ‘his library [is] dukedom large enough’. Although his title has been revoked, he still remains ruler of his own library, his own powers and, by extension, the island that said powers allow him to control.

The personification and capitalisation of the fatalistic elements ‘Destiny’ and ‘Fate’ introduce the ideal of determinism, conducted through a higher power who, in Passage Three, is named as Prospero. Ariel’s characterisation embeds Shakespeare’s view of Prospero as an almighty master of the island, just as the playwright himself. Ariel’s comedic use of the phrase ‘Thou liest’ further establishes the elaborate intricacies of Prospero’s plotted revenge. This portrays a profound understanding of Ariel’s blatant loyalty toward Prospero. Although Caliban insists that Prospero ‘cheated [him] of the island’, Ariel seemingly does not. This illuminates the contrasting pasts Ariel and Caliban have experienced. Shakespeare uses the backstories of these characters to queston the fatalistic connotations of The Tempest through the abusive manipulation of Ariel despite his strong connection to Prospero.

Through his use of sword-related puns, Shakespeare draws attention to the stage direction ‘ALONSO, SEBASTIAN & c. draw their swords’ which establishes the scene’s characters as unnecessarily violent. Ariel’s portrayal as a harpy undermines authority by showing that Alonso and Sebastian can only respond to perceived threats with violence. While Shakespeare often shows Caliban to be the violently bestial and instinctual one, his repetition of the title ‘lord’ in the second passage shows how his intelligence is far more substantial than Prospero assumed. By referring to Stephano as ‘My lord’, Caliban appeals to the sense of power that he truly craves while subverting Prospero’s assumptions in order to seek revenge for the abuse he has experienced throughout Prospero’s reign. Through the use of complimentary language, Caliban proves to be more sly and clever than his ‘valiant master’.

Through her acknowledgement that ‘Good wombs have borne bad sons’, Miranda shows a disregard for the social significance of familial inheritance and genetic bloodline. While Miranda does state that she thinks ‘nobly of her grandmother’, Shakespeare uses this to express Miranda’s lack of social and cultural exposure. Prospero failed to educate Miranda in this manner, seemingly due to his brother’s actions ‘in lieu o’ the premises of homage’. The unconventional nature of familial relationships in The Tempest reflects its unconventional setting.

Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: That Other Guy on May 28, 2014, 10:23:16 pm
Hi, all. This is my close analysis essay on Gwen Harwood's poetry - in particular, the poems 'Suburban Sonnet' and 'In the Park'. (At this point, we are only linking two passages.)
I would appreciate some feedback!

Oscillating between the zeniths of one’s past and the nadirs of the present, Suburban Sonnet and In the Park illuminate the melancholic circumstances of motherhood, revealing through changes of time how liberty has become repressed. However, amidst this existential dystopia, Harwood demonstrates that there exist moments wherein the manacles of creative numbness loosen and the interior may come to flourish. 

Within the staccato “She sits in the park” and “Her clothes are out of date”, mother’s exemption from society’s progressions and the dismal entrapment of isolation is envisioned. Harwood attributes motherhood to the fulfillment of an expiry date here, relegating it as a state of stagnation and decay. Conversely, in one regard, the ephemeral moment of inspiration in “Tasty dishes from stale bread” in Suburban Sonnet insinuates the moments of hope and fulfillment that reside amidst motherhood’s monotony. However, on another level, this also advances that motherhood does not entirely oppress hope, but rather accentuates previously ignored mediums through which hope and personal expression can bloom. Hence, despite the implicit encumbrances of maternity, Harwood reasons that one can subvert these fetters and exploit their ills to produce something ironically desirable.

Akin to the mother’s increasing irrelevance within society referenced within In the Park, the indolent “yawned” coupled with the soft “caper” divulges the impotency of one’s efforts made within motherhood’s parameters; however, such is also applicable beyond the sphere of domesticity. It becomes elucidated in In the Park through the feigned pleasantness of “‘How nice,’ etcetera” the inherent hollowness of society which negates the mother’s endeavours to achieve societal distinction. The forced facades of apathy within “It’s so sweet to hear them chatter” further mark the disingenuousness which women have become inclined to assume, hence diluting their attempts to transcend their subjugation and be intrinsically free.

The hyperbolic “They have eaten me alive” in In the Park reveals the irony in the mother’s simultaneous destruction and gesture of love, exposing the duality of motherhood’s ramifications. Here, Harwood explicates that within the realms of maternity, one cannot prefer the heights of joy or the depths of regret, but rather, must experience the poles of these emotions simultaneously. Such reasoning is complemented with the tender “She hushes them”, swiftly undercut by the frantic “she rushes to the stove / too late”, which reveals that ignoring the industrious aspect of motherhood only wreaks pandemonium and upsets balance within the family. The lack of reciprocation of the mother’s loving gestures in Suburban Sonnet is envisaged within “drain out with soapy water” and the subsequent “Her veins ache”, unveiling the emotional turmoil that arises from the obligations of motherhood coupled with the isolation of patriarchal oppression.

With the acute ‘s’ sounds commanding “she scours” tumbling into the harsh reality of “crusted milk”, Harwood reveals that the exterior banalities of maternity are doubly bleak interiorly. Harwood marks within “a pot boils over” and the link between “subject and counter-subject” that the dissatisfactions of motherhood extend beyond the cyclic tedium of house work, rather manifesting within the ineffectuality of the mother’s efforts made to transcend the dreariness of her role. The sickness experienced by the mother is, on one level, an insinuation of ‘morning sickness’; however, Harwood takes care to suggest that it may also arise from the mother’s acquiescence to the hopelessness of her condition. This manifestation of the mother’s interior turmoil points to the vastness of her disappointment. Such is illustrated within the discontent of “Once she played for Rubenstein, who yawned”, juxtaposed with “though it can matter to no one now if she plays well or not”; here, the mother’s attempt to build upon the displeasures of her past cascade in “a wave of nausea” as its futility becomes realised. The insensate “sits staring at her feet” in In the Park evokes this sense of disillusionment and ineffectuality again within the alliteration of “’sits staring”, complemented by the finality of “departing smile”. The superficiality of society’s gestures has hence catalysed the mother’s despair, impelling to direct her despair “To the wind”. Harwood explains here the need for an existence beyond the confines of empiricism to comprehend one’s condition, and thus somewhat allay motherhood’s constricted physical liberties. In this sense, the wind offers the objectivity of nature, completely detached from the judgement of society; while the mother has sought solace elsewhere, “his departing smile” illuminates society’s apathy that consequently prevents her from attaining it. Her state of segregation in society has disposed her to become increasingly dependent on the wind to channel her despondency and hence expound her own reality. 

The wistful “Someone she loved passed by” in In the Park brings to the fore the ambrosial fragments of the past, which are inevitably undercut by the abrupt “too late”. The enjambment of “A pot boils over / too late” evokes a similar sentiment through its precipice-like volatility. Within this, it is indicated that while the past and its enticements are alluring, the irreversible circumstances of motherhood render any attempt to retrieve these lost pleasantries redundant, for they are mired within the present’s unpredictability. Similarly, the terse yet lethargic “She comforts them” unveils the state of impotence that has beset the mother as the trappings of the past dilute her efforts in the present. Such a notion is invoked in “They stand a while in the flickering light, rehearsing” in In the Park, as the inherent boredom suggests that the confrontation of the past has done little to resuscitate the vivacity of this lost time. In one aspect, the past’s penetration of the present has become sullied by the tainted lens of the mother’s present circumstances. However, it can also be suggested that motherhood’s inertia fundamentally petrifies women in a state of societal abstraction, having come to exist solely within the cyclic “children chatter, / then scream and fight”. These notions, referenced throughout In the Park, exemplify maternity’s finality; the mother’s present and past may no longer interact, rather only to be remembered through the threads of her being that remain between them.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: KyleBroder on August 07, 2014, 04:47:20 pm
Would appreciate some feedback on this close analysis relating to Shakespeare's 'the Tempest'. I have only recently started close analyses and am yet to cover it in class. The passages were from the 2013 VCAA exam. Thanks in advance.

Passage Analysis - The Tempest

Throughout 'the Tempest' there are fervent power struggles between the characters, due to both class, and gender. Shakespeare's use of Prospero's blunt tone as he commands his daughter to "cease more questions" helps establish and expose man's supposedly inherrent dominance over women, and show the inevitable consequences that arise from gender inequality. Furthermore, the act of the tempest itself, overturns the social hierarchy and "supplants" what it means to be of a certain class.

Knowledge plays arguably, the most integral role in the social hierarchy, with Prospero being at the apex due to his staff and books. He is aware that his "zenith doth depend upon" his knowledge exceeding that of others. Through Shakespeare's use of "prescience" it is overtly stated that such is "A most auspicious star, whose influence if now I court not, but omit, my fortunes will ever after droop". Hence, women are given no oppurtunity of education for "thou canst not choose", they are forced to silence the "beating" in their "mind".

Shakespeare critiques the views held toward an educated woman in his time through the characterisation of Sycorax. An educated woman, a woman in power, "a witch, and one so strong that could control the moon, make flows and ebbs, and deal in her command without her power". Something of such a horrifying nature that engaged in sexual relations with the devil, and produced Caliban, a "demi-devil", a "thing of darkness" "not fit for human form". However still, Prospero, and therefore man is still able to dominate over the opposing gender, the staff, a phallic symbol, establishes the link between the source of power and who is to have the power.

In 'the Tempest', however, who is to have the power falls victim to "conscience", or lack of. Violent power struggles are seen through the characters of Sebastian and Antonio as they each strive for greater control. Through "open-eyed conspiracy" and the drawing of "thy sword", Shakespeare exposes the brutal "precedent" that determines who "got'st Milan". It is clear that Shakespeare is challenging the dichotomisation of power, for "if of life you keep a care, shake off slumber and beware. Awake, awake!"
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: drmockingbird on August 12, 2014, 12:42:31 am
Would really love some feedback on this passage analysis on Jane Eyre :)

Jane Eyre’s " long(ing) to surmount " the chains of social subjugation imbues Passage One with a claustrophobic, repressed quality. Charlotte Brontë’s hypotactic narration, evidenced by the heavy use of subordinate clauses throughout each passage, brings the reader itself into Jane’s metacognition - the burdened, laborious construction of sentences accurately reflecting the intricacies and complexities of Jane’s thought. The author augments this process with the heavy use of first-person, reflexive action - " I imagined myself to be", " I believed I was " - petitioning her reader not to regard Jane as the distant, detached voyeur would, but to see  Jane as she regards herself. This stylistic mechanism, which ultimately renders the reader more likely to sympathise with the developing Jane, is mirrored again in the opening of Passage Three, albeit to a greater extent, as Jane breaks the fourth wall by directly addressing the " Reader ".

Engaging us in such a manner, Brontë then utilises phrases such as " exile limits ", " disciplined " and "boundary of rock and heath " portraying Jane’s institutionalization at Lowood as equivalent to mental confinement; this picture is compounded when she herself describes her thoughts as " inmates " of her mind, and her surroundings as " prison-ground(s)".  Jane’s pleading soliloquy incites the reader’s " wonderment " - we empathise with Brontë’s protagonist as she laments the loss of her " tranquility ", reminisce earlier memories of the text as she mentions " descending " into Lowood and Mrs.Reed’s continuing hostility towards her, and, as she describes her " school-rules, school duties, school habits, and notions, and voices, and… antipathies ", feel that her " half-desperate " cry for a "new servitude " is wholly warranted. The drudgery inherent in Jane’s routine is, in the latter example, brought into sharp relief by Brontë’s anaphoric juxtaposition of asyndeton and polysyndeton -  both the use, and lack of, conjunctions emphasising the repetitive mundanity of her situation. Essentially, the voice the reader hears in this Passage is that of a perfervid, impassioned Jane - a Jane in her " natural element ", a Jane of " sensations and excitements ", whose actions are motivated solely by the force of her agency.

Passage Two, on the other hand, presents a starkly different picture. From the outset, Brontë establishes clearly that Jane’s thoughts are now arrested by an external entity - the imperatives in " come to me -- come to me entirely now " and " Make my happiness "  suggest that Rochester’s love envelops rather than empowers Jane. The same Jane who once protested against John Reed being called her " master " now refers by that same appellation Mr.Rochester, - " I could scarcely see my master’s face as it was " - an action directly antithetical to those of the fiercely independent Jane we encountered in Passage One. Brontë’s heroine elevates Rochester to a Godlike pedestal - this apotheosis is reflected in the religious lexis throughout the passage such as " pardon " , " my Maker ", " tribunal " and " sanctions ". In these passages, religious imagery also plays the important role of foreboding Rochester’s bigamous nature. Rochester speaks of his actions as if he is justifiying them; the author attempts to pique the reader’s suspicion with phrases such as " expiate " and " atone ", which connotate that there is, de facto, a sin or misdemeanour to atone for. The reader may even construe Rochester’s speech herein to be arrogant - we wonder why his embracing of Jane in the " friendless, cold, comfortless " state he claims to have found her " wash(es) his hands " of his treatment of Bertha, or whether, indeed, he receives the " sanction " of the Divine in this endeavour.

Jane believes her relationship with Rochester is transcendental, a " paradise of union ",  while Brontë seems to endorse a ‘mythic’ interpretation of this exchange - the pathetic fallacy of the chestnut tree cracking  foreshadows the fact that Jane and Rochester’s communion will ‘writh’, ‘groan’ and ‘crash’, just as their environment does. Try as the lovers might to " defy (man’s opinion) ", to surpass the metaphysical barrier of human love and have their affair " meddle(d) not " with at the hands of " man " but " expiate(d) " at the tribunal of " God ", adjectives such as " pale " and "grave " remind the reader that their bond is essentially susceptible to the same vulnerabilities and shortcoming any other human relationship - the passing of time, the " grave " of death itself. 

This notion is referenced again -  near the denouement of the text in Passage Three, the maturity of their second union is demonstrated insofar as Rochester recognises the fact that their relationship will eventually fade - " over your grave or mine ". This maturity also extends into Jane - retaining the individualistic drive that characterised Passage One, she remarks " Reader, I married him ",  clearly indicating that she initiated the marriage out of her own accord - waiting neither for the permit of Moor House or Cambridge; Diana and Mary’s approval is ex post facto, Brontë’s positioning of this sentence near the close of this passage clearly outlining that their acquiescence had no bearing on Jane’s " thus act(ing) ".

The extravagance and flamboyance of the past is replaced in this renewed conjugation of Jane and Rochester by the " humbler supplication " of realism, the  " phlegmatic " realisation that a " remarkable" union does not require the " shrill ejaculation " of " worldly wonderment ", but rather internal reconciliation and mutual trust. It is of no surprise, therefore, that Brontë’s language in this paragraph is supporting of her heroine - its simplicity reflecting the sobriety of Jane’s thoughts. The text here is vernacular - exhibiting the non-standard dialect of John and Mary in " she’s noan faal and verry good natured ", the author suggests that Jane has come to recognise the minute, unornamented pleasures of life -  common activities such as " basting...chickens ", "cooking the dinner ", " cleaning " and " polishing " the knives - the latter of these particularly significant as it signifies the purification of Jane through the hermetic, crucible-like nature of her ordeals. The use of the modal " did " in " Mary did look up, and she did stare at me, and the ladle...did for some three minutes " dons this section of the text a verisimilitude; the emphasis on the completeness of the action giving the language clarity and succinctness.

The coda of the passage seems to suggest that just as Jane Eyre’s two protagonists are entrenched in reality, they are yet simultaneously connected by the same " abundant flow " of bliss that bound them to each-other at Thornfield; their love may not be eternal, but will " shine their life long ", it may not be "sanction(ed) " by their Maker, but will exist in the " sanctum " of human companionship.


(passages in spoiler)
Thanks!

Spoiler

Passage One

From the day she left I was no longer the same: with her was gone every settled feeling, every association that had made Lowood in some degree a home to me. I had imbibed from her something of her nature and much of her habits: more harmonious thoughts: what seemed better regulated feelings had become the inmates of my mind. I had given in allegiance to duty and order; I was quiet; I believed I was content: to the eyes of others, usually even to my own, I appeared a disciplined and subdued character.

But destiny, in the shape of the Rev. Mr. Nasmyth, came between me and Miss Temple: I saw her in her travelling dress step into a post-chaise, shortly after the marriage ceremony; I watched the chaise mount the hill and disappear beyond its brow; and then retired to my own room, and there spent in solitude the greatest part of the half-holiday granted in honour of the occasion.

I walked about the chamber most of the time. I imagined myself only to be regretting my loss, and thinking how to repair it; but when my reflections were concluded, and I looked up and found that the afternoon was gone, and evening far advanced, another discovery dawned on me, namely, that in the interval I had undergone a transforming process; that my mind had put off all it had borrowed of Miss Temple--or rather that she had taken with her the serene atmosphere I had been breathing in her vicinity--and that now I was left in my natural element, and beginning to feel the stirring of old emotions. It did not seem as if a prop were withdrawn, but rather as if a motive were gone: it was not the power to be tranquil which had failed me, but the reason for tranquillity was no more. My world had for some years been in Lowood: my experience had been of its rules and systems; now I remembered that the real world was wide, and that a varied field of hopes and fears, of sensations and excitements, awaited those who had courage to go forth into its expanse, to seek real knowledge of life amidst its perils.

I went to my window, opened it, and looked out. There were the two wings of the building; there was the garden; there were the skirts of Lowood; there was the hilly horizon. My eye passed all other objects to rest on those most remote, the blue peaks; it was those I longed to surmount; all within their boundary of rock and heath seemed prison-ground, exile limits. I traced the white road winding round the base of one mountain, and vanishing in a gorge between two; how I longed to follow it farther! I recalled the time when I had travelled that very road in a coach; I remembered descending that hill at twilight; an age seemed to have elapsed since the day which brought me first to Lowood, and I had never quitted it since. My vacations had all been spent at school: Mrs. Reed had never sent for me to Gateshead; neither she nor any of her family had ever been to visit me. I had had no communication by letter or message with the outer world: school-rules, school-duties, school-habits and notions, and voices, and faces, and phrases, and costumes, and preferences, and antipathies--such was what I knew of existence. And now I felt that it was not enough; I tired of the routine of eight years in one afternoon. I desired liberty; for liberty I gasped; for liberty I uttered a prayer; it seemed scattered on the wind then faintly blowing. I abandoned it and framed a humbler supplication; for change, stimulus: that petition, too, seemed swept off into vague space: "Then," I cried, half desperate, "grant me at least a new servitude!"

Passage Two

"Come to me--come to me entirely now," said he; and added, in his deepest tone, speaking in my ear as his cheek was laid on mine, "Make my happiness--I will make yours."
"God pardon me!" he subjoined ere long; "and man meddle not with me: I have her, and will hold her."
"There is no one to meddle, sir. I have no kindred to interfere."
"No--that is the best of it," he said. And if I had loved him less I should have thought his accent and look of exultation savage; but, sitting by him, roused from the nightmare of parting--called to the paradise of union--I thought only of the bliss given me to drink in so abundant a flow. Again and again he said, "Are you happy, Jane?" And again and again I answered, "Yes." After which he murmured, "It will atone--it will atone. Have I not found her friendless, and cold, and comfortless? Will I not guard, and cherish, and solace her? Is there not love in my heart, and constancy in my resolves? It will expiate at God's tribunal. I know my Maker sanctions what I do. For the world's judgment--I wash my hands thereof. For man's opinion--I defy it."
But what had befallen the night? The moon was not yet set, and we were all in shadow: I could scarcely see my master's face, near as I was. And what ailed the chestnut tree? it writhed and groaned; while wind roared in the laurel walk, and came sweeping over us.
"We must go in," said Mr. Rochester: "the weather changes. I could have sat with thee till morning, Jane."
"And so," thought I, "could I with you." I should have said so, perhaps, but a livid, vivid spark leapt out of a cloud at which I was looking, and there was a crack, a crash, and a close rattling peal; and I thought only of hiding my dazzled eyes against Mr. Rochester's shoulder.
The rain rushed down. He hurried me up the walk, through the grounds, and into the house; but we were quite wet before we could pass the threshold. He was taking off my shawl in the hall, and shaking the water out of my loosened hair, when Mrs. Fairfax emerged from her room. I did not observe her at first, nor did Mr. Rochester. The lamp was lit. The clock was on the stroke of twelve.
"Hasten to take off your wet things," said he; "and before you go, good-night--good-night, my darling!"
He kissed me repeatedly. When I looked up, on leaving his arms, there stood the widow, pale, grave, and amazed.

Passage Three

Reader, I married him. A quiet wedding we had: he and I, the parson and clerk, were alone present. When we got back from church, I went into the kitchen of the manor-house, where Mary was cooking the dinner and John cleaning the knives, and I said -
"Mary, I have been married to Mr. Rochester this morning." The housekeeper and her husband were both of that decent phlegmatic order of people, to whom one may at any time safely communicate a remarkable piece of news without incurring the danger of having one's ears pierced by some shrill ejaculation, and subsequently stunned by a torrent of wordy wonderment. Mary did look up, and she did stare at me: the ladle with which she was basting a pair of chickens roasting at the fire, did for some three minutes hang suspended in air; and for the same space of time John's knives also had rest from the polishing process: but Mary, bending again over the roast, said only -
"Have you, Miss? Well, for sure!"
A short time after she pursued--"I seed you go out with the master, but I didn't know you were gone to church to be wed;" and she basted away. John, when I turned to him, was grinning from ear to ear.
"I telled Mary how it would be," he said: "I knew what Mr. Edward" (John was an old servant, and had known his master when he was the cadet of the house, therefore, he often gave him his Christian name)--"I knew what Mr. Edward would do; and I was certain he would not wait long neither: and he's done right, for aught I know. I wish you joy, Miss!" and he politely pulled his forelock.
"Thank you, John. Mr. Rochester told me to give you and Mary this." I put into his hand a five-pound note. Without waiting to hear more, I left the kitchen. In passing the door of that sanctum some time after, I caught the words -
"She'll happen do better for him nor ony o't' grand ladies." And again, "If she ben't one o' th' handsomest, she's noan faal and varry good-natured; and i' his een she's fair beautiful, onybody may see that."
I wrote to Moor House and to Cambridge immediately, to say what I had done: fully explaining also why I had thus acted. Diana and Mary approved the step unreservedly. Diana announced that she would just give me time to get over the honeymoon, and then she would come and see me.
"She had better not wait till then, Jane," said Mr. Rochester, when I read her letter to him; "if she does, she will be too late, for our honeymoon will shine our life long: its beams will only fade over your grave or mine."


Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Coopha on May 20, 2015, 07:18:54 pm
Arcadia by Tom Stoppard
Just wondering if I would be able to get some feedback on this essay. Thanks


Arcadia by Tom Stoppard examines the conflict between Classicist and Romanticist forms of thinking. Stoppard explores the question of whether each form of thinking can exist solitarily or if they can be melded together to exist in harmony.

Stoppard sets his play in two time periods. One is in 1809 and the other in the present day. It is in 1809 that the Enlightenment is yielding to Romanticism. The present day character of Hannah, a historical writer, regards this period as "the decline from thinking to feeling." At the same time in physics a few holes are beginning to appear in the balanced patterns discovered by Newton. In this time period of 1809 a young student named Thomasina longs for science to reach beyond the ordered regularity of geometric shapes and instead wants to tackle what is random and irregular such as the shape of a bluebell "if there is an equation for a curve like a bell than there must be an equation for one like a bluebell"

The idea of classicism and romanticism is a complex one. Stoppard has heightened the complexity and confusion of ideas by setting the play in the two different time periods. For instance, Thomasina deviates from the narrow road of mathematics into the unchartered territory of irregularity. In 1809 this school of thinking would have been regarded as Romantic. However in the present time period Valentine is following Thomasinas same method of maths but he is called a classicist. A new idea is always seen as irregular and disordered therefore romantic. However as time moves on everyone will hold this idea as a truth and it will be seen as ordered, reasonable and therefor classic. Stoppard wants his audience to question when the new modern will take over our own idea of "romantic" because today's classical was once romantic itself.

Stoppard uses characters in present day Sidley Park that embody either Romanticist or Classicist forms of thinking to demonstrate the conflict and chaos that can erupt as a result of these ideals colliding together. The present day character of Valentine is a classicist relying on order and equations to seek the independent truth. His counterpart is Bernard a Romanticist who jeers at Valentines quest for the abstract truth and argues that the process and journey of obtaining truth is more important than the the truth itself.     

In a heated discussion between Valentine and Bernard the crack between these two ideals becomes a ravine, an abyss as both characters represent their ideology as black and white. They are ideologues who stand by their way of thinking seeing no middle ground, closing the door to some truths.

Valentine sparks the heated discussion by directly challenging Bernard's idea that personalities are important in the scope of history. Valentine calls personalities trivial but discovery of the independent truth of higher importance.
 "What matters Is the calculus. Scientific progress. Knowledge." 
Bernard immediately rejects this theory saying " I can think of nothing more trivial than the speed of light" Bernard's belief is that the knowledge of lights speed doesn't say anything about being human as we can't touch or experience the speed of light.

Bernard says to valentine " zap me with penicillin and pesticides and I'll spare you the bomb and aerosols." This satirical statement is in response to Valentines confident one that scientific progress is more important than personalities. Bernard forms a humanitarian argument that knowledge of helpful inventions like penicillin and pesticides are canceled out by their evil counterparts like bombs and aerosols. Bernard is proving his opinion that a classical world is not a harmonious one as scientific truth will kill us. He states that " progress is not perfectibility" that in terms of being human these transcendent truths were only bringing us closer to an imperfect society and farther from the essence of what it is to be human.

Valentine in contrast is a classicist. He has set himself the humble task of finding the mathematical equation that can predict a population of grouse. Valentine accepts that randomness or "noise" is as much a part of reality as order. " real data is messy....very hard to spot the tune" Valentine then goes on to say that the way the " unpredictable and the predetermined unfold together to make everything the way it is......it make me so happy" Valentine likes the mystery of the unknown. The endless possibilities that the future could take, that one equation could never predict every aspect of ones life. He says "it's the best possible time to be alive, when almost everything you thought you knew was wrong. This was due to the chaos theory. However the cause of valentines happiness also causes him to become frustrated and angry.
Valentine "I've given up on grouse"
Hannah "Why?"
Valentine " too much noise. Too much bloody noise."
Despite Valentines appreciation of the random nature of the future he becomes frustrated because he cannot see the truth within something so seemingly simple. The simplest of inconsistencies compound to become larger until the truth is no longer visible through the noise.


Classicism and Romanticism themselves hold no flaws but it is the characters who represent the ideologies who are flawed. Bernard accuses classicists as potentially trying to discover the rules by which the Divine Creater himself worked. He therefore calls classicists arrogant for attempting to do this. This is ironical as we are taught by Stoppard to view Bernard as the arrogant character. We are constantly reminded that the basis of Bernard's knowledge is all a lie. Stoppard also breaks up Bernard's almost intelligent conversations with a shallow minded comment in between. " we were quite happy with Aristotle's Cosmos"  Bernard likes the idea of the earth being the centre of the universe and this is indicative of his arrogance. He also says "how did you con us out of all that status? All that money?" Bernard's ulterior motive is to gain fame and fortune, not consistent with the true Romanticist quest for self discovery. His only focus is on self knowledge which is internal and never external and this can lead to arrogance.

Stoppard represents Valentine as a more likeable character. He is on no quest to find the equation for the future.  He has a humble aim of predicting the grouse population. However valentine struggles to comprehend that Thomasina as a young child could come up with the same maths as him more than 100 earlier. Valentine can almost see the empirical truth but his arrogance clouds his vision making it impossible for valentine to keep it in his grasp.Valentine instability is seen at the conclusion of the play when he turns to alcohol as a source of absolution.


Stoppard is trying to show his audience that the abyss between Romanticism and Classicism can be crossed. Although one might think of themselves as only possessing one of these ideologies a person possesses both of them. It is like one circle of a Venn Diagram. A person may posses predominantly one form of thinking but instead of an abyss between them there is a space that allows the harmonious intermingling of ideologies. Stoppard is trying to show that life that cannot be lived within the confines of just one ideology. It is necessary that a person has both within them as to move forward in both thought and emotion. Even if the discovery of the art or science in themselves is purely accidental, every human uses both Classicism and Romanicism to reach an understanding of both themselves and the world they live in.
 
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Nerd182 on June 02, 2015, 06:59:46 pm
I just took a brief read - I'm going to lay out some issues for you.

 - There's not much analysis. You do a lot of 'telling' and giving background information. This is unnecessary.
 - There is a lack of flow. It is fine to move to different ideas, but I get the sensation that I'm reading a lot of paragraphs, written separately, being copied and pasted into a jumbled order.
 - Your analysis isn't the analysis Lit is looking for. You need to talk about how the quote (or whatever evidence you use) achieves a particular purpose. E.g. 'the lilting cadence of 'xxx' in line 5 creates a movement to the line, propelling its pace' or 'the use of conjectural imagery reflects 'author's' inability to maintain a firmly grounded framework'
 - There are random sentences that don't belong. 'it is like one circle of a venn diagram' <- that is not appropriate.

I'm running out of time so that's all I'll leave for now. I might come back later.
Read a couple of the earlier submissions to help you build your work. EZ's work is great.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: That Other Guy on June 06, 2015, 10:09:23 pm
In Cold Blood - Truman Capote
Unfortunately, I cannot provide the passages. I would really appreciate some feedback!

Across passage 1, Capote employs the town of Holcomb as a microcosm of American life and visualises the destruction of social structures in the wake of the Clutter murders. Envisioning the “shallow horror” of the “frightened gossips, mostly male”, Capote seeks to convey the subversion of social norms. By having males engage in an activity commonly associated with women, Capote intends to indicate the magnitude of the Clutter murders; that which dissolves the standards upholding Holcomb and unveils the true nature of its citizens. Furthermore, the connotations of “cold” used to supplement the “shallow” response enforces the community’s detachment to the nature of the murders of themselves. Rather, Holcomb’s inhabitants are moved by the ideological implications of the crime – its destruction of individual utopia and the seeming imperviousness of the American Dream. With Postmistress Clare’s assertion that “everyone was… talking all kinds of wild-eyed stuff”, it is evident that the inhabitants of Holcomb have been torn from their mental moorings; they are, as implicit throughout passage 1, striving to mask the situation’s true horror through ambiguous language such as “pulling a stunt” and “maybe”. The use of “kind of wondering!” professes an evident aversion to confronting reality directly. Capote enforces here that the inhabitants of Holcomb have been thrust into an environment of perceived duplicity and distrust. In the grander context of the novel, this suspicion becomes an overarching motif that comes to characterise the collective society of America, thus resulting in Perry and Dick’s deaths.

However, via Mrs Hartman’s “candour” in passage 1, Capote permits the reader to the seemingly unspoken sentiments of Holcomb’s inhabitants. The slang utilised by Hartman in “sure took the fly out of me”, suggests that she was once aloof with her comfortable naivety, and further positions her as a bastion of rural values. The realisation herein, culminating in Clare’s rhetorical question “then who’s safe, I ask you?” signifies an enlightenment that redefines the social constructs of Holcomb. As referenced earlier in the novel, Holcomb’s people once relished in the liberty of unlocked doors and sleeping in the dark. On one level, Clare’s inquisition appears to elucidate that the sensationalism of the act has altered significantly a society established upon the pursuit of the American Dream. However, on another, it impugns the invincibility of this ideology, thereby signifying the deterioration of the façade upheld by the utopian Clutters. The italicised and thus emphasised utterance of “couldn’t” in passage 3 evokes a similar incredulousness in Dewey, who assumes that Mr. Clutter, the epitome of the American Dream, “would have fought [back]” in defence of “Bonnie’s life” and the “lives of his children”. Herein lies Capote’s criticism of the pleasing veneer of the American Dream – one that fails to fulfil the beliefs of Holcomb’s inhabitants. With Dewey’s projection having not aligned with Herb’s actions during the murders, Capote delineates humanity and its assumption of the American Dream as one that champions a constant infallibility within its practitioners.

On the contrary, Capote recognises that society’s deference to social norms are ultimately injurious to their evaluation of the mentally ill. As Marie peruses the “mug-shots” in passage 2, Capote applies a grotesque juxtaposition between Perry’s “moist, dreamy” eyes and the barbaric nature of the crime. Herein, Perry’s perspective on the world is realised; that which is viewed through clouded lens of quixotic dreams. As Capote proceeds to contrast Perry’s character with Dick’s, to which Marie associates with a “bobcat… eyes radiant with pain and hatred”, and whose eyes are “forbiddingly ‘criminal’” the reader apprehends the bestial nature of this man. However, bearing the descriptions of both men in mind, Capote strives to engender sympathy for Perry, whose heightened self-awareness and “ironic, erratic compassion” in passage 3 signifies a true – albeit stunted – connection to his own humanity. Hence, Capote observes the limitless complexity of humanity, conceding that within the most depraved individuals there exist moments of charitableness.

In a similar vein, Perry’s realisation of the absurdity of the murders in passage 3 points to the irrationality of striving towards the American Dream. Fraught with pithy sentences, Perry’s admission to have been “sick” and “disgusted” with his primitive behaviour envisions the manipulation of envy. The dichotomy between “rich man” and “child’s silver” establishes, on a grander level, the hierarchy upheld by the American Dream; Perry is, as is seen here, deigning to the level of this insignificant currency, thereby inhabiting his subordinated position within society. In another sense, however, Perry is emulating Dick, who Capote described to be “serpentine”, by “crawling on his belly”. Herein, Capote envisions the grotesque transformations of Perry’s character elicited by the allure of the American Dream. This contrasts with the Capote’s physical depictions of Perry in passage 2, encapsulated in language such as “peculiar refinement”, which establishes an unalloyed visage of his character. Furthermore, the overarching futility of Perry’s actions in passage 3 marks the ever-retreating hope for attaining the ability to exercise his dreams. Thus, as it appears, Capote examines the human condition under the guile of the prospects of wealth and how this can be corrupted by the vices of society.

Building upon this, by depicting Dewey as “emaciated”, Capote envisions the development of a societal malaise. Employing Dewey's wife as an emblem of society, Capote addresses the stigmatism that arises from a “[bad] state of mind”. On one level, Marie’s anxiety regarding her husband’s health encapsulates a humanly instinctive nature to express concern towards a loved one; however, on another, it unveils her realisation that her husband’s societal position is now jeopardised. Dewey’s transformed persona of passage 3 does not exhibit such qualities, embodying a relentless curiosity and a reprisal of his persona at the outset of his investigation. Thus, Capote illustrates the fulfilment of Dewey’s purpose through his ameliorated physical and mental condition in passage 3. Conversely, Perry’s decline from the haughty persona in the mug shot of passage 2 to the dishevelled figure of passage 3, realises the prevailing nature of the American justice system: one that esteems the affluent and the illustrious and disregards the economically defeated. It is apparent that Perry’s efforts to attain societal place are futile, contrasting with Dewey and Hartman of passage 1. With the eventual executions of Perry and Dick, the reader finally apprehends the insidious nature of American society and its marginalisation of the mentally deranged. For Capote, Perry and Dick’s executions mark the culmination of American ignorance, positing that a society domineered by the American Dream is inherently unwitting, so staunchly fixated on self-preservation, that it forgets the value of humanity itself.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Apink! on June 08, 2015, 02:08:03 pm
Hi!
Could someone please give me feedback on the little paragraph I did?

Adrian Hyland - Kinglake 350

The passage is an excerpt from Snapshots, Adrian Hyland's Kinglake 350. It narrates the family of Drew Barr and Angie OÇonnor escaping from the fire front that has passed their home.

"Only home the kids have ever known" allude to the loss of identity and sense of belonging the children suffered as they watched their home burn down to the ground, and "Grace burns her hand..."depict the endurance the children withstood while confronting emotional trauma and physical injuries. The pains afflicted to those who are weaker members of society such as children and animal are prominent in this passage. "Cows up against fences" are strong imagery which create a desperate scene where livestock have struggled to escape the confinements of their little home in order to flee away from the fire front. "Gaping mouths"and "beseeching eyes"are highly emotional language that create a picture of unimaginable pain that animals have had to endure - members of the society who were simply ignored for being less valuable than human lives. What Hyland laments is the lack of attention towards the weaker members of the society- before, during and after the Black Saturday, and their subsequent suffering because of the adults who were meant to act responsibly. Beyond this, Hyland criticises our innate instinct to ignore possibilities of ill-fortune and hope for the best circumstances, for the sake of others that depend on us.

Thanks! It's really crappy :P Please criticise, I feel like I need it :P

Thank you guys (:
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: coconut stripes on October 30, 2015, 04:10:47 pm
I only did one Para, but if anyone could mark it, it would be much appreciated.

Jane’s statement, ‘I desired liberty; for liberty I gasped; for liberty I uttered a prayer,’ within excerpt two reveals her ‘desperate’ yearning for liberation and freedom- an escape from the restrictions of Lowood. As she describes the ‘boundary’ of Lowood which renders her an ‘exile’ within its ‘prison-ground’; Bronte reveals the restriction that Lowood placed upon Jane, isolating her from the ‘real world’ and rendering her a prisoner within its confines. Within passage two, Jane ‘trace the white road winding round the… mountain’ which she ‘longed to follow’; Bronte expresses Jane’s strong desire for freedom. The road is seen ‘vanishing’ in a gorge; Jane cannot know where such a road may take her, yet still yearns after ‘change, [a] stimulus’. Bronte reveals that Jane is not afraid of the unknown, of ‘life amidst [the world’s] perils’, a notion which directly contradicts how women were expected to behave within 19th century patriarchal society, in living a life sheltered and dependent upon their husbands.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Fullmethyl Alchemist on November 02, 2015, 04:08:56 pm
I've written for the Lit Exam 2014 on Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf... Is it too much trouble if someone could look at an excerpt?

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Edward Albee:

... George is quickly distracted by the implications of Martha revealing their secret. He speaks, "more or less to himself"and to an absent Martha, "as if she were in the room", "... you goddamn destructive..." In his distraction, his affable facade drops; when Honey says, "Oh, it's so late..." implicitly asking to leave, George responds, "nastily" and obliquely brings up the fact that Nick and Honey should have, but do not have children. This is one of the ways that Albee shows the artifice inherent in his character's behaviours. By having George preoccupied, his true opinion of the guests is shown and contrasted with his displayed attitude of being a gracious host. This is a statement on the artificial society that people build in their face-to-face interactions, of civility and pleasantries, and how no one is exempt from the dishonesty; in fact, everyone is expected to participate in the dishonesty, because a world of perpetual truth is regarded as distasteful and chaotic.
...

Nick is shown attempting to apologise, saying, "Honey... baby... I'm sorry... I didn't mean to...", a display that George observes "with some disgust". When confronted by Nick, he says, "I hate hypocrisy", which is a comment on the fundamental defining aspect of Nick's character, beyond his worldly success- Nick is a hypocrite. Nick is someone who will do or say anything to get ahead- evidence in his forced apology to Honey, which he doesn't mean, as illustrated with his outburst at George- ".... DAMAGING! TO ME!!" in response to George's flippant, "she'll recover." He regrets the injury to his relationship with his wife, not that his wife is hurt- and by repeatedly emphasising Nick's success and George's failure, the play conflates success with lies and hypocrisy. To effectively reach the "American Dream" of the 1950s is to renounce the truth.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Maz on February 14, 2016, 05:58:18 pm
Hey...can someone please mark my essay- it's going to be an in-class essay so it might not turn up exactly like this...i just did this for practice
it's an essay on belonging by Tim Winton...it doesn't have a conclusion yet...we were given the text and told that we had to do a close reading on it...so here is something i through together to make it a bit easier to do when we get the actual question tomorrow- we get 50 mins to write it if that helps in any way...i feel like there is something wrong with it- maybe the way it flows? anyway i'd appreciate any help  :)

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. The 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. 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.

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. 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. At the outset, the persona establishes a negative connotation in the tedious routine of work , which is conveyed in 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’. A change to positive atmosphere is achieved when he visits Perth in the visual imagery “the air was soupy, salty” and oral imagery “birds in the mint scented scrub all round”. The simile in “nervous and giggly like a pair of tipsy travellers” stresses 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. The persona proceeds to relate the effect of the fire with his view of the world, “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. In this way, Big World’, illustrates a vital aspect o belonging; an understanding about themselves and the world around them to belong.
 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 in the bullying the persona encountered by Tony Macoli and that Biggie saved him from it. Winton highlights that healthy relationships do not only provide companionship but also safety, security and satisfaction. 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.

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 on the strong bond between the two protagonists and emphasizes on the theme of mateship, which lurks in the story. 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. 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…’ and explaining that ‘there have been girl’s I’ve disqualified myself from because of Biggie’.  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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: The Raven on February 14, 2016, 08:35:44 pm
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. The 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 analysis AtFrom 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 conveyed in through 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. The persona proceeds to relate the effect of the fire with his view of the world Cut 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:


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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Maz on February 14, 2016, 09:26:24 pm
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. The 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 analysis AtFrom 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 conveyed in through 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. The persona proceeds to relate the effect of the fire with his view of the world Cut 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'
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: The Raven on February 14, 2016, 09:57:39 pm
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'

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

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Maz on February 14, 2016, 10:21:45 pm
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
 thank you! again  :D
my essay has now made it to 1200 words...do you think i will be able to write that in 50 mins?
thankyou again
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Maz on March 28, 2016, 03:33:34 pm
Hey, i was wandering if someone could please have a look at my tutorial...i plan on starting by giving some context of what happened around the period it was made- and does anyone have any ideas on how to make it more like a tutorial? i was gonna ask questions from the audience...but i'm not entirely sure what and which to do; however at this stage it is pretty much just an oral. It's on the poem Australia by A.D.Hope
During the period between 1930s-1970s, Australian poet A. D. Hope, compiled a book with his poems, called “Collected Poems’. Amongst that collection was the poem Australia, though the exact date Australia was written is unknown.  Within the 7 stanzas of Australia, Hope presents a very negative view of the country, Australia, through the exploration of the spiritual poverty that Australia is ostensibly subject to. Hope describes the ‘nation’ as ‘drab and desolate’, indicating that Australia is a monstrous, dreary place. This, on a side note, is very interesting as it was very recently in the 40s, that Australia had just established it’s image and nationality to the world through it’s involvement in World War 1. Thus the poem becomes a juxtaposition of societies’ view of Australia; national and international, versus the patriarchal stance of the writer.

Each stanza consists of a four line-rhyming scheme of ABBA, which enhances the easy reading aspect of the poem. This is very clearly seen through the word –endings of the first stanza, ‘grey-wars-paws-away’. This form of rhyming scheme would have been very important in a poem such as this, to allow for an easier acceptance of a poem that clearly be-little’s Australia.

Hope then couple’s this rhyming scheme with the use of imagery, to further enhance his idea of the bleakness of the nation. Through derogative language including ‘drab green’, and ‘desolate grey’, Hope divulges the insipidness of the landscape. Words such as these present ideas of dull-ness, already in the first lines notioning audiences to view Australia through this new lens. The phrase give a sense of grouping in Australia, generally this grouping could have been taken through a positive association to Australia’s mateship, however, Hope ensures the negative view of this phrase through the deliberate use of ‘monotonous’, hereby presenting the repetitive and tedious aspect of the nation he lives in. Through this mere phrase, Hope hastily destroys any individuality present in Australia, defining it as a place were all tribes, or people, are the same. Presenting an image in his audience’s minds of similarity to the extent that it is almost unbearable and should be frowned upon. This also greatly contradicts the image of multi-culturalism Australia had begun to build. This line likens itself to a proceeding line, ‘field uniform of modern wars’, where everything is in a strict uniform, a uniform of dull coloring; in shades of grey and green. Colors symbolically used by the Australian military to fade into the background. An idea Hope is equating to Australia, by stripping the land of her uniqueness, and individuality.

Hope then examines this imagery further through the further enhancement of this viewpoint. The Alliterated ‘drab green, desolate grey and ‘last of lands’, provide this extra notion, pushing audiences to view the nation through the author’s eyes. This alliteration enhances the hard ‘d’ and ‘g’ sounds that provide the dreary aspect of Australia. Hope goes as far to describe it as ‘the emptiest’. As well as this, the sibilance of ‘savage and scarlet’ reveals the authors despise towards the nations identity, as all words used in description are of a cruel nature. The tone of the poem is mocking and through the use of a metaphor Hope made when implying the abstract ‘human-like’ qualities by referring to Australia as she; he also mocks culture, history, land and the Australian way of life.

Through the use of personification, Hope further accentuates his viewpoint of Australia. He begins by referring Australia to ‘her, in the line ‘they call her a young country’, speaking of the country like one speaks of a woman. However Australia isn’t portrayed angelically or full of life, and ‘Australia’ becomes the criticism of the Australian culture, and land. Hope states, ‘they call her a young country, a women beyond her change in life, a breast still tender but within the womb is dry’. Through this powerful statement Hope declares Australia’s, or this ‘woman’s’ inability to bear and raise children, not questioning the ability of her to raise them healthy, but outright denying her ability to bear the at all. This personification is translated to a country, giving audiences the idea that Hope believes that the land is barren and un-fit to sustain life. This personification further supports Hope’s claim when he states, ‘She is the last of lands, the emptiest; within the womb dry, without songs, architecture and history. Hope portrays Australia, a woman as a series of disappointments; she was supposed to be able to bear children, she failed; she was supposed to be one of culture and amusement, rich in history; again, she failed. This mainly occurs during the first 5 stanzas, as ‘she’ is portrayed as a series of absences. Hope tells audiences that those who come to live in Australia pride themselves not of living, but ‘merely surviveing’. Through likening the country to a woman, Hope portrays her in an excessively negative light, successfully degrading any image and reputation the country had been building.

Hope’s lines carry them selves heavily with negative images. In the first stanza, Hope likens the country to being like a ‘Sphinx’, in the line, ‘those endless outstretched paws of Sphinx demolished or stone lion worn away’. The Sphinx was a predominant figure in Egyptian culture, a figure possessing the body of a lion and the head of a man. Symbolically, the Sphinx is a representation in Egyptian mythology of strength and wisdom. This comparison could be directly related to the author’s vision of Australia. The Sphinx was once new and un-affected by time, seen as a creature of great wisdom. However, through describing the figure as ‘demolished’ and ‘worn away’, Hope presents the idea that Australia’s reach and realm of intelligence, power and greatness has too, ‘worn away’. Hope suggests that Australia used to be better, more new, like the Sphinx, however now the old reputation has gone, and the country is wilting under the effects of time.

Australia to him is devoid of culture. Hope, as previously mentioned, describes her as without songs, architecture and history. Her rivers, are described as of ‘immense stupidity’ in the line rivers of water drown among inland sands, The river of her immense stupidity.’  Though Hope believes that the country has no culture or heritage, he believes it has the capability to do so; except the ideas ‘drown among inland sands’. It is here Hope, not only attacks Australia’s culture, but also degrades the intelligence of it’s inhabitants; describing them as with ‘immense stupidity’. As Australia was originally thought of as the place Britain sent the convicts, the author puts foreword a notion that the people who come here are not happy or happily entering a new country. Instead, that they are, ‘second-hand Europeans’ on ‘alien shores’. Even the word ‘alien’ adds to the negative connotation of the poem. Describing Australia as some out-cast and un-known land. As it is common behavior for people to withdraw from the unknown; Hope utilizes the word alien to create a hesitation towards Australia. The proceeding lines to this indicate Hope’s view that Australia once was great. Hope states ‘drains her, a vast parasite robber state’. Hope sees people as a drain upon the country, and presents the new-comers as parasite- like, taking all good from the country and thus diminishing it to it’s current ‘drab and desolate state’. Furthermore, the phrase ‘second-hand- Europeans’, successfully diminishes Australia’s international image, as the author describes it’s inhabitants as ‘second hand’. The idea of an item being ‘second hand’ carries itself heavily with negative connotation. Symbolically, second hand items are given to those that are poor and needy; an idea, which relates itself to Hope’s idea of a ‘barren’ and ‘monotonous’ land. In Hope’s view, Australia is un-deserving of new items, rather having to settle for those from Europe. Hope insults Australia’s inhabitants through this negative language, in the process also degrading it’s mother country, England, in an attempt to belittle all with even a small relation to Australia.

i haven't done a conclusion yet
but thank you so much in advance :) and i'd really appreciate any thoughts
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Maz on April 21, 2016, 01:08:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: HopefulLawStudent on April 21, 2016, 04:10:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: literally lauren on April 22, 2016, 12:56:58 pm
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 -.-

@mq: I'm only going to mark this for clarity and structure since I took a look at the WA course outline and jfc it's kind of a mess, so I don't really trust myself to critique relevance or how effectively you've addressed the question. Also, trust your teacher's advice over mine for obvious reasons.
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 recurring theme don'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 the drama '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, whom are 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, declaring through I famous quote himself to be "in revolt against the age-old lie...", ‘I am in revolt of against the age- old lie that 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, you are 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; highlighting upon the 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 Nora to as 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 ease at with 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 point ensues Good!.  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 associated profoundly to with 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. Ibsen articulately incorporates 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, at what which 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.
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:
- paragraph structure
- quote integration
- punctuation (esp. commas and apostrophes)
You seem to know the text very well, but some more clarity in what each paragraph is setting out to accomplish + ensuring you're writing and quoting grammatically would go a long way :)

Let me know if you have any questions - sorry I can only be of limited help here.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: parasiticsultanas on July 04, 2016, 11:32:51 pm
Essay on Winter: My Secret (by Rossetti). I'm currently kind of dying from a lack of any feedback from my teacher, so any feedback greatly appreciated!


ESSAY
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; 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. Through a self-conscious attempt to place emphasis on the constructed nature of art, Rossetti reclaims power through poetry, exalting in the fictitious and imagined as a means of transcending her own subjugation in Victorian society.
The poem opens jarringly in media res, launching the reader into a well-established relationship with the speaker. The forceful “no” strongly engenders the feeling that the reader has probed the poetic voice for her secret; it is deliberately at odds with what a literary opening usually connotes, 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”, the use of internal rhyme and assonance contributing to a sense of beguiling lyricism. The 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. The absence of extrinsic references—to the external world and external events which have transpired—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”.
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, as the speaker enacts in harsh aural detail the implications of “ope[ning] to everyone who taps”; the stinging sibilance 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, as so does the violent crack of the “k” in the aggressive verb “peck”. 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”; 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.
Almost as quickly as momentum is constructed, it is cut off in stanza three with the enjambment of “March”, extending time cartographically 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—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. In this sense, the speaker’s continued reluctance to divulge her secret—protracting the time in which she takes to do so 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”. In her rejection of May—with its connotations of fertility, marriage and love—and the “rainbow-crowned showers” of April—a synesthetic symbol 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.
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 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 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”—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”—the speaker once again asserts her autonomous spirit in the ownership of her secret. In this sense, the abrupt conclusion—one which forgoes a sense of closure—preserves the rebelliousness of language, themes and characterisation within Rossetti’s self-sufficing artefact. Thus, while Keats’ Ode to a Nightingale and Ode to Autumn (alluded to in the first three lines) 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.
 


Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: literally lauren on July 13, 2016, 05:43:19 pm
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” strongly engenders the feeling that the reader has probed the poetic voice for her secret; it is deliberately at odds with what a literary opening usually connotes establishes(?), 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, as so does 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—one again, 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.

Firstly, the quality of your analysis is awesome! Often Lit essays have to be punctuated with comments like 'how do you know?' 'where's your evidence' and 'but what LANGUAGE is contributing to this sense?' but you're effectively answered those questions at almost every turn. There were occasional moments where your focus seemed to shift, or else the conclusion you reached was a little tenuous given the analysis that had come before it, but for the most past, this was all highly tagetes the language and features of the poem.

Structurally, because you're just looking at one poem in isolation, this is fine, but when it comes to full-blown passage analysis, try and avoid the chronological approach. The ideas you were reaching at the end of your paragraphs were excellent, so all you'd need to do was hide those references to 'in stanza three...' and instead make idea/language-based transitions wherever possible. That said, it's not disastrous if you do things this way (i.e. one passage per paragraph or something like that) - it just means that the assessors might be more critical of the limitations of your focus. If you're still able to make decent connections across stanzas/passages though, you should be fine.

Awesome work overall though - your close analysis of words and sounds (esp in the 2nd BP) was really impressive - keep it up! :)
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Buttercrisis on July 21, 2016, 12:06:40 am
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?
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 painted in Reality Demands, Wislawa Szymborska sculpts an exceedingly sombre representation of this same concept in The End and the Beginning. 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’, 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. Contrastingly, this quick recovery in response to the brutality of human conflict is painted by Szymborska 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’- Szymborska in the face of the cold truths of war boldly notes that ‘life goes on’. Woven into the words of Reality Demands is the underlying confidence and hope that even within this ‘terrifying world’, the speedy recovery of societies subject 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’. 

The ubiquitous nature of war is one painfully expressed across both poems by Szymborska. Utilising 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. By utilising this method of writing akin to methodical list-taking, Szymborska presents cold evidence of the painfully pervasive nature of war.   

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! :)   
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Maz on July 21, 2016, 11:38:56 am
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:

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?
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 of this 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 poems by Szymborska. Utilising Through 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! :)   
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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Maz on July 21, 2016, 01:26:51 pm
Hey,
I wrote this essay on The Great Gatsby and I was wondering if someone could please have a look at it?
I would appreciate any thoughts?

Examine the ways in which writers shape and adapt generic conventions to reflect and expose particular value systems. In your response, you must make reference to at least one literary text.
By Maryam Qureshi
[/b]

Set during the post World War 1 economic boom of the 1920’s, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby (1926), is often referred to as a chronicle of the American Dream, exploring a point of the nation’s history when capitalism and economic opportunity for all was at it’s peak. The Great American Dream incorporated the belief that anyone, regardless of where they were born, could obtain prosperity and success. Deep-rooted in the Declaration of Independence, the American Dream was the proclamation that ‘all men are equal’, with full right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ Perhaps one the best works of literature, representing the American Dream is the Great Gatsby. Throughout the novel, Fitzgerald contextualizes a gripping antithesis regarding the Great American Dream, through a contrast and disclosure of societies key value systems, including the emphasis upon materialism and commodification. The Great Gatsby juxtaposes characters born in the upper echelons of society, with Myrtle and Gatsby, who attempt to transcend the class boundaries but ultimately become ‘incoherent failures’. The novel displays ‘how dreaming can be tainted by reality, and that if you don’t compromise, you may suffer’(Azar Nifisi). Fitzgerald’s text exposes the key value systems prevalent within society through an adaption of generic conventions, reflecting the misery of a modern capitalist society.

Employing the first person point of view, Fitzgerald conveys the entire story of Gatsby from the memories of Nick. Through this utilisation of Nick as first person narrator, the novel’s integrity strengthens as all key characters are neatly tied together, through Nick, in the position of ‘Daisy’s second cousin’, ‘Gatsby’s neighbour’ and ‘Tom‘s [acquaintance] in college’. It is arguable that, despite Nick claiming that he is ‘inclined to reserve all judgements’, Fitzgerald, in essence, is providing readers with over 150 pages of judgement. Notwithstanding this confession, Nick is employed as a reliable narrator so that ‘life is successfully looked at through a single window’. Nick is taken out of any story line within the novel, hereby, creating an unswerving attitude towards the contradictions and conflicts which drive the plot. Through ‘employing a narrator who is more of a spectator than an actor’ (Maxwell E. Perkins, editor of The Great Gatsby in a letter), Nick becomes an observer, however, not an impartial one. Consequently, through Nick’s eyes, Fitzgerald exposes the ‘ruin of society’ and degeneration of the upper echelons; as Nick depicts in vivid imagery, the ‘behaviour [of the guests] associated with amusement parks’, and the prevalence of meaningless indulgence within society.  Though this first person point of view can provide vivid imagery, Nick can’t provide detailed knowledge of other characters thoughts and feelings. In chapter five, Fitzgerald employs transgression point of view to surpass that narrative limits on a first person narrator. Nick comments upon Gatsby as he goes ‘over to say goodbye’ and sees the ‘expression of bewilderment [which] had come back into Gatsby’s face…Almost five years! There must have been moments even that afternoon when Daisy tumbled short of his dreams.’ In this comment, Nick creates a supposition to Gatsby’s mind, as the statement, ‘Almost five years’, appears as though it has come directly from the mind of Gatsby. Thus, the narrator transcends the limits of the ‘I’ witness point of view. This transgressed point of view serves importantly in conveying meaning within the novel as readers find motive in Gatsby feeling ‘a faint doubt’ regarding the meeting. Focussing upon Gatsby’s feelings and actions provides Fitzgerald opportunity to idolise those with wealth and power portraying the emphasise society placed upon the wealth; contextualising the era as one with ‘parties [which] were bigger, a pace [which was faster] and morals which were looser.’   
              Additionally to the transgression of the point of view, Fitzgerald employs shifts within the narration to view one event alongside another for long periods of time. Within The Great Gatsby, the shifts are predominantly presented in first person narration, however, they are of limited essence; being omniscient or partially omniscient. This is evidenced when Tom takes Nick to ‘see [his] girl’. As it is only rumoured and ‘insisted upon’ that Tom has a mistress, it is reasonable for Nick to utilise the omniscient view as he deems it ‘supercilious’ for him to visit Myrtle. Fitzgerald then quickly shifts Nick’s point of view to first person narrative as he becomes ‘curious to see her’. Here, this change enables the main focus of the novel’s plot to be centred around Gatsby, and not Tom, changing the attention focus more upon what Nick’s thought are, rather than the story of Tom. The shift from one point of view to another allows an observation of each character’s thoughts and feelings; sanctioning the development of plot and narrative truth. Nick becomes a vehicle for the author’s final judgement. Thus, through an adaptation of the generic convention of point of view, Fitzgerald shapes audiences to view Nick as an acumen and reliable narrator, so that he is placed in a position to successfully depict the place of commodification and materialism within society.        

Utilising the generic convention of point of view, Fitzgerald exposes the failure of the American Dream and the drive for a materialistic lifestyle, through the eyes of Nick Caraway. When Tom takes Nick to the Valley of Ashes to meet his ‘mistress’, Myrtle, Nick likens the area to a ‘wasteland’, portraying the ‘desolate area of land’ as plagued with destitution and dilapidation. Nick’s point of view of the ‘ash grey men’, allows for Fitzgerald’s exposure of the flip side of materialism, revealing the detrimental outcomes, which ensue when all items are produced to facilitate the wealthy. Despite the outward appearance of excessive wealth, only a very small minority of the 1920’s society lived the ideology of the American Dream, while a large proportion of society lived in poverty. This was perhaps the first hint of the failure of the American Dream, which incorporated the idea of all men being able to attain wealth. Society’s emphasise upon materialism is realised through the stagnated aspect of the inhabitants of the Valley of Ashes, who Nick categorically describes them as ‘spiritless and anaemic’. Despite the ‘ghastly’ description Nick gives to every other aspect of the Valley, he depicts a slightly jovial picture of Myrtle; displaying her as one of ‘perceptible vitality’ and ‘sensuous [ness]’. Notwithstanding this early optimistic connotation, as Nick spends time with her, the first person point of view begins to mock her attempts to behave as a host, describing her as ‘violently affected’. Fitzgerald reflects, through an adaptation of point of view that society within the twentieth century placed great emphasis upon materialism and commodification. This is indicated through Nick’s mockery of Myrtle’s ‘incessant’ and ‘immoderate’ movements, revealing much about society’s values as Nick ignores her infidelity and criticizes her for only her working class pretensions. On the other hand, through a combination of point of view and characterisation, Fitzgerald exposes the American Dream as un-attainable. As Myrtle tries to move up the social rungs of this apparent ‘meritocracy’ through her association with the ‘wealthy’ Tom, she is condemned, mocked and eventually killed; positioning her as the collateral flip side to materialism. This convention allows focus upon the key value systems prevalent in society during the early twenties’; conveying a society, which valued monetary contempt above all else.       

The novel provides an insight into the outwardly heady capitalist culture, exposing its dark underbelly and it’s impact upon personal value systems. The deceptive ‘inexhaustible’ charm of a life ‘full of money’ gives rise to a large contribution towards the decay of personal values. Fitzgerald utilizes many generic conventions to portray this ideology, however, none so powerful as the characterization of the wealthy Tom Buchannan, the bourgeois figure of the story. The ‘bourgeois respectability’, as it was called, incorporated ideas of financial success free of debt and a high morale patriarchal society. As a member of an ‘enormously wealthy [family]’ , Tom relates to the world majorly through his money, the one exception being his expression of ‘love’ for Daisy. For Tom, all things are commodities. Even his marriage to Daisy Fay was an exchange of beauty and social standing for the image of Tom’s strength, stability and power; all of which imparted him. This was an idea symbolized through the ‘string of pearls valued at three hundred and fifty thousand dollars’, Tom gifted to his bride-to-be. Though it is not necessary, or custom to spend excessive amounts of money on a necklace, Tom does this to draw attention to his affluence. Similarly, Tom utilizes his socioeconomic status to seduce Myrtle and his other mistresses, whom, like the guests at Gatsby’s party, are drawn to him ‘like moths to a flame’. His consistent infatuation in lower class woman can be explained through the commoditized view the world upheld in the 1920s. Tom promotes his wealth to women who are most desperate for it, satisfying himself at a level unaffected by logic, reality or the everyday world. This id level of satisfaction manifests itself in the desire to ‘purchase’ numerous working class women; including the ‘common, but pretty’ woman he interacts with, just metres from his wife. Thus, Fitzgerald, by exposing audiences to the nature of the prosperous, divulges the  key value system within the hedonistic society through a reflection upon the detrimental side-effects and thinking of the monetary driven.

However, ‘Tom’s commodity psychology is not wholly limited to his relationships with women’ (L.Tyson). Rather, it branches to encompass all aspects of the ‘you are what you own’ capitalist thinking exhibited through the ‘fantastic dream’ of the decade’s sustained prosperity and dizzying technological advancements. Fitzgerald conveys this key drive within society thorough an emphasis of Tom’s characterisation, incorporating the notion of Tom’s own sense of identity linked to how others see him. The importance of social status within society is disclosed with Tom’s discourse and his need to divulge the ‘nice place’ he has. Following this idea, Tom further embodies the consumerist attitude of society by mentioning that the house ‘belonged to Demaine, the oil man’, and thus, denoting that the house pedigree itself is of ‘old-money’ lineage. This convention of the wealthy displaying their wealth is evident again when Tom toys with George Wilson regarding the sale of the ‘car’. Financially, the matter of ‘sell[ing] that car’ means very little to the wealthy Tom, however, it is of great value to the impoverished George. It can be presumed that there isn’t even a ‘man working on’ the car, and Tom is merely dangling his considerable wealth in front of Wilson so he has an excuse to see Myrtle. Fitzgerald conveys the failure of the American dream, through Tom’s behaviour with the impoverished George. As the dream incorporated the idea of hard work providing success, it is interesting to observe that George, who was a ‘proprietor’ running his own ‘business’, is presented as the weaker and ridiculed, comparatively to Tom, who is given no indication of even working a day in his life and is given a position of dominance. Through this, Fitzgerald conveys the power of the upper class of the weaker class; denoting that the weaker are at the mercy of consumerist value system.  Tom’s agonistic nature becomes a medium through which Fitzgerald ridicules the American dream; disclosed through the generic convention of discourse in Nick’s description of his ‘careless [ness]’ and his tendency to ‘smash up things and retreat back to [his] money or vast carelessness.’ Though Tom is living a life most people in the twenties would consider a dream, he ends up ‘smash[ing]’ up those who wish to become like him. In Tom’s case, Myrtle’s death becomes the method of ‘cleaning up [his] mess’. Subsequently, Fitzgerald exposes the unfair nature of and the respect those with ‘wealth’ demand, through a condemnation of the values of those who are born into ‘old money’. Through the generic convention of the characterisation of Tom, Fitzgerald exposes the excessive underlying importance society in the 1920’s placed on commodification, and it’s key place at the very core of the American Dream.

Fitzgerald critiques the consumerist lifestyle through a stark separation between key settings within the novel. These setting segregations juxtapose the classes of ‘old money’, ‘new money’ and impoverished working class. The consumerist culture exhibited in The Great Gatsby was possible through the growth of the upper class in the early twentieth century. This growth brought with it value upon the display of wealth and an era characterised by Republican notions of rugged individualism. According to this theory, the abundant wealth in the possession of Gatsby should have ensured the outcome of the American Dream. However, one quality that undermines self-made wealth, was wealth which was inherited and the result of an ‘enormously wealthy family’. This became a point of conflict between ‘old money’ and ‘new money’; severely criticising the idea in the American Dream of the value of hard work. In a culture manifested with pecuniary emulation, the most common method in which to declare ones wealth was through possessions. It is through the expression of the generic convention setting, that Fitzgerald exposes the consumerist lifestyle evident amongst society at the time. This notion is perhaps most evident in in Louisville where ‘the largest of the banners and the largest of the lawns belonged to the Fay house’. The intense importance of commodification is realised through the discourse of the home itself having ‘belong [ings]’, which is portrayed as desirable by also housing Daisy who is ‘the most popular of all the young girls’.  Here, Fitzgerald introduces another value system, which is prevalent not only within the 20th century, but also prevalent in the modern day. Immediately proceeding the ‘belong [ings]’ of the Fay house, Daisy is introduced in a similar fashion; exposing that women themselves had becomes possessions. This notion is supported by the generic convention of Nick’s dialogue as he describes the effect on Gatsby upon loosing Daisy as ‘his enchanted objects diminish[ing] by one’.  The Fay house is brought up again later in the novel, when Gatsby’s past is discussed. It is here again, that Fitzgerald intertwines the two generic conventions; setting and language to further emphasise upon the value society placed on commodification. The ‘ripe mystery’ of the house attracts many ‘officers’, who sensed the ‘hint of bedrooms upstairs [which were] more beautiful and cool than other bedrooms, [the] gay and radiant activities taking place through its corridors, and of romances that were not musty and laid away already in lavender but fresh and breathing and redolent of this year’s shining motor-cars…’. This sort of language can be analysed through stylistic analysis to disclose the meaning reader’s can take from the language Fitzgerald uses; ‘to find the artistic principles underlying a writers choice of language’2. Within stylistic analysis is the grammatical category of Appositional phrases and romantic, evocative imagery. The sentence is saturated with words that exhibit the sheer wealth of the Fay’s highlighting the ‘beautiful bedrooms’ the wealthy possess and the ‘radiant activities’ they engage in. Everything contained in this appositive is suggestive and works to provide the compelling, ‘ripe mystery’ of the ‘golden’ Daisy, thus depicting the rich as desirable and highlighting the importance society in the twenties placed upon material wealth. Depicting the ‘ripe mystery’ of Daisy, Fitzgerald depicts her as a commodity; exposing the dehumanisation of others that results from a society obsessed with wealth.       

Whilst the Fay mansion laudably conveys the emphasis society placed upon materialistic possessions, it is only one of the many settings, which portray this. Nick notices that West Egg and East Egg are ‘dissimilar in every particular except shape and size’, driven by the need to constantly out-do one another. This competition became one of the most necessary plot drivers within the novel, as Gatsby and Tom fought for the materialistic Daisy. The Buchannan mansion, resides in East Egg, originated from families who have had money through inheritance and who have been categorically described as ‘old money’. East Egg of Long Island is a blatant representation of aristocracy and formality, accentuating the prominence of wealth in society. The setting concretizes ‘the sort of devouring, self-pleasuring and hypocritical materialism the stupendous and ruthless success of nineteenth century capitalism fostered and enabled’ 2 At the very beginning of the novel, Nick visits the Buchannan’s in their ‘white palace’ which he observed to ‘glitter along the water’. Coupling the generic convention of setting with language, reveals the illusion of purity the house is depicted as exuding. Fitzgerald’s choice of words, including ‘white’ and ‘glitter’, are symbolically associated with angels and a notion of purity. The constant drive within society to be above others socioeconomically becomes evident, as the house is a ‘cheerful red and white Georgian colonial mansion’, affirming the cultured European taste, placing them in patrician society. This European atmosphere the house emanates is further enriched through the use of ‘French windows’ and ‘reflected gold’. The imported commodities and foreign design of the ‘palace’ providing the Buchannan’s with an image of esteem. However this directly reputes the values of the American Dream. The ‘palaces’ give rise to the presence of class within society, an idea which directly relates to the old aristocracy present in Britain; a doctrine which conflicts with the egalitarian republic set-up of America. However, even the Buchannan mansion gives rise to the failure of the American Dream.  This is bet depicted through the ‘tumultuous scene’ created from the ‘wreck’ of Owl Eyes’ drunken car crash. Tom emphasises that the house originally belonged to ‘Demaine, the oil man’, which provides Fitzgerald a deft and unobtrusive method by which to convey that the emphasise society placed upon material wealth had attained a corrupt level. The notion of oil being a reactant in destruction is again depicted when Myrtle’s life is ‘violently extinguished’. Myrtle’s death brought with it the shocking spectacle of her left breast ‘swinging loose like a flap’ after the accident, exposing those who attempted to gain wealth as debased, disfigured and violated. Thus, to hide the failure of the American Dream and expose the materialistic nature of people in the early twentieth century, Fitzgerald draws upon Europe and ‘old’ history creating a façade to dignify and hide the dangerous value systems of society.
In contrast, West Egg as a setting is an emblem of the nouveau riche, depicting the vulgar and gaudy division of society in the 1920s. As the ‘less fashionable’ of the two eggs, the inhabitants of West Egg lack social graces and are consumed by a ‘raw vigour that chafed under the old euphemisms’. Perhaps the most ludicrous of all settings within The Great Gatsby is Gatsby’s own mansion and the location of his flamboyant parties. The mansion is described as a ‘colossal affair by any standard’, imitating ‘Hotel de Ville in Normandy’ and exposing Gatsby’s all too obvious efforts to create a façade of sophistication. This exemplification of one’s socioeconomic status and highlighting the importance of it is an everlasting theme amongst literature, and subsequently, a reflection of society. The mansion, like the Buchannan house, is a symbol of excess wealth containing a ‘tower on one side, spanking new under a thin beard of raw ivy, and a marble swimming pool and more than forty acres of lawn and garden’. The use of large multi-clausal sentences describe the numerous “bedrooms swathed in rose and lavender and silk and vivid with new flowers, through dressing rooms and pool rooms and bathing room with sunken baths’, the house contains. However, despite this and the ‘celebrated people’ Gatsby fills it with, the Gatsby mansion appears ‘lonely’ and lacks the elegance and sophistication present in the Buchannan house. Emphasised via the plural language, Gatsby’s mansion is filled with fatuous assets, which hold little meaning, depicting the failure of the American Dream as Gatsby creates a hollow imitation of his wealth. The need for a monstrous façade to obtain happiness is depicted as pitiable, and through Nick’s eyes, Gatsby’s quest for his ‘green light’ is romanticised. According to this notion of consumerism, Gatsby has become overwhelmed by his surroundings, to the extent that he feels no option but to submit to the socioeconomically classified society. However, even when he does, he is still considered as an outsider by his guests, many of whom leave ‘without having met Gatsby at all’. Through this Fitzgerald reveals the value system of materiality which was of major prevalence within society, however, also depicts the failure of the American Dream, as even the ‘Great’ Gatsby, who embodies the description of wealth, is still treated as an outsider since he is not of ‘old money’ lineage.

The opening of Chapter three provides a sensory depiction of Gatsby’s parties. Fitzgerald describes the scene as one of uncontained debauchery where inhabitants are driven purely by the pursuit of pleasure. Although Gatsby’s house is ‘full of people’ and a container for hoards of wealthy positions, it is spiritually empty, exposing the hollowness of the American Dream. Fitzgerald describes the party with an air of excessive consumption as the ‘buffet tables’ are ‘garnished with glistening hors –d’ouevre spiced backed hams…and turkeys bewitched to dark gold’. Fitzgerald again combines language with setting through narrative sentence types in the Grammatical category. The party is depicted as a kaleidoscope of movement as  ‘groups change more swiftly, swell with new arrivals, dissolve and form in the same breath; already there are wanderers, confident girls who weave here and there among the stouter and more stable, become for a sharp, joyous moment the center of a group, and then, excited with triumph, glide on through the sea-change of faces and voices and color under the constantly changing light.’
. Despite being the longest sentence in the description of Gatsby’s oncoming party, there is no loss of clarity. Its first clause in a composition of four coordinated verbs; ‘change’, ‘swell’, ‘dissolve’ and ‘wonder’. The apposition of ‘confident girls’ which ‘weave’, ‘become’ and ‘glide’, provide the sentence with a description depicting quick movement from one ‘group’ to the next; hence highlighting the atmosphere of chaos and mindlessness. Gatsby held parties often, almost as if that will bring the life to him that he lacks within himself. However, the popularity this party brings him as ‘men and girls went like moths’, fails to fill the purpose of filling the emptiness within Gatsby, rendering those who follow the idea of the American Dream and build up their own wealth as outcasts of society.

However, it is not until after Gatsby’s death that the true contrast and nature of the roaring 20s is realised. The dream Nick has proceeding Gatsby’s death, unveils another side of America that had become ‘distorted’ under the glitz and glamour of riches and parties. Fitzgerald depicts a stark imagery in the setting of East Egg;
 Even when East Egg excited me most…it had always for me a quality of distortion. West Egg, especially still figures in my more fantastic dreams. I see it as a night scene by el Greco: a hundred houses, at once conventional and grotesque, crouching under a sullen overhanging sky and a lusterless moon.’
         Evidence of the corrupting society and the failure of the American Dream soon become apparent as East Egg is stripped bare of it’s façade. The once uncontained hedonism of a place ‘full of people’ has become a place of human alienation, with ‘a hundred houses’ that have now become ‘grotesque’ rather than ‘fashionable’ and ‘cheerful’ as they once were. The ‘drunken women’ becomes a symbol of the exhausted nature of society as she is delivered by ‘four solemn men’ who don’t even know ‘the woman’s name’. The image painted is bleak as the sky ‘overhangs’; ‘sullen’, exposing the moral decay now becoming evident. The emphasise placed upon wealth during the ’twenties has attained a status where even the woman’s ‘cold jewels’ have more ‘sparkle’ than the ‘lustreless moon’, criticising the value system that emphasized materialism above all else.

Fitzgerald exposes, through an accentuation of the generic conventions of characterisation, language, setting and dialogue; that American society within the 20th century was manifested with the value system of commodification, driven by the want for a materialistic lifestyle. Fitzgerald highlights this through a ridicule of the values of the American Dream and the resultant effects upon those who followed its incorporated concepts. Both Myrtle and Gatsby, the two characters’ striving for the attainment of the American dream suffered the severe consequence of death. In the end, Gatsby never attains ‘the green light, and the orgastic future’, despite believing in it even when it ‘eluded’ and ‘receded before [him]’. Thus, through the medium of the Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald reflects upon the American dream as unattainable and an empty promise of happiness. Despite this, society within and beyond the 20th century, places great emphasis upon materialistic wealth and commodification, a value system that is to this day, timeless. ‘That is part of the beauty of all literature. You discover that your longings are universal longings, that you are not lonely an isolated from anyone. You belong.’ (Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald).   
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Buttercrisis on July 22, 2016, 11:27:51 pm
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...
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 :)   
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Maz on July 23, 2016, 01:05:52 pm
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...
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 :)   
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.
Like, for example, I did an essay on Henrik Insen's A Doll's house. Now, Henrik Ibsen specifically quoted that his play was NOT a play about feminism, however, my essay was about how it reflected society at the time. Doing a feminst reading of it would be a brilliant way to convey that. But because Henrik Ibsen had said that 'it wasn't about Feminsim, I should no longer say 'Ibsen, conveys a feminist reading of his play through the discourse of Nora's husband, conveying the domineering nature of men at the time'. instead I should say 'The 20th century play, A Doll's House' lends itself to a feminist reading, conveyed through its saturation of discourse conveying Nora's husband as haveing power over her'
HOWEVER, this is a MINOR point, and it might score you a little higher to follow it, but it will definitely not cause a deduction in marks. A lot of people say 'that an author does this to portray X', even I do (as I imagine a lot of other people do, especially in exam scenarios), and in some essay questions, it is (almost) unavoidable. I would say that if you can (and the question allows it), stay more close to saying 'the  text lends itself to a Feminist reading, due to the discourse between character X and character Y when discussing...'. Do you kind of see what I mean? It sounds better, and you aren't assumeing, which makes you sound more reliable and more like you know what you are talking about.

I hope that cleared it up for you. Haveing a re-read of your paragraph, I think you are fine in saying what you did. Just try and keep in mind what I said and maybe incorporate it more...
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: bianic on August 18, 2016, 09:54:07 am
I'd love some feedback if anyone has time?

The Cat's Table - Close Analysis
passages attached if thats helpful

Ondaatje's book, the Cats Table, introduces the reader to the subtle complexities of children. In the first passage Ondaatje's use of the phrase 'deserted ship' with the lingering smell of 'the previous nights cigarettes' suggests that Michael and the boys are disconnected from the rest of the ship's passengers yet still influenced by what happens aboard. This is reinforced in latter passages when Michael explains that they learned about adults 'by simply being in their midst'. The suggestion that the presence of an adult can alter and teach a child represents Ondaatje's belief that children are more intelligent then they may at first seem. Furthermore, Ondaatje's description of Mrs Lasqueti's laugh that had 'rolled around in the mud once or twice' and that 'everything was based on that wink by Mr Mazappa' shows that Ondaatje believes that children are able to observe the connotations of adults attempts to be subtle. In these descriptions Ondaatje attempts to show that children, such as Michael, are not to be underestimated in their intelligence and that adults should thus be careful as to what they are exposing children to. 

However in his book Ondaatje does not just explore the depth of understanding that children have, but also the depth and complexity of adults. By describing Mrs Lasquetti's 'chosen gloom' and Mr Gunesekera 's 'complex shrug' Ondaatje constructs an air of mystery around the adults and thus hints at their hidden depths. Ondaatje's description of the 'lithe' and 'whimsical'  Mrs Lasquetti provides the reader with insight into the contrasting characteristics of the adult mind. Yet ultimately she is only a character of interest and provides no clear purpose, only showing the juxtaposing elements of the human mind and the power mystery has. Contrarily the bland character of the 'silent and content'  Mr Gunesekera  shows the reader a character of little interest that 'laughed when [everyone else] laughed' and has no mysterious elements. The juxtaposition of Mrs Lasquetti and Mr Gunesekera  is shown through the normality of the laughter and shallow conversation that is drawn from Mrs Lasquetti yet the 'rare quiet moments' that are found as a result the alarm in Mr Gunesekera  face shows that the 'livid welt' near Emily's eye shows the frailty of the simple. The pure and fragile moment that is constructed comes solely as a result of the simple and completely mundane Mr Gunesekera. This is used by Ondaatje to show that mystery and intrigue has great power but beauty and kindness can be found in the simplicity of normality.

By creating parallels between the complexities of both adults and children Ondaatje creates a confounding issue in the simplistic and shallow relationships of a postmodern society. His descriptions of the 'new kind of beauty' that was the Australian creates a sense of mystery. However the enthrallment that the boys feel at this is undercut by the description of her crashing and merely 'glancing at her watch' as the 'mayhem of rolling trolleys' continues around her. Ondaatji uses this to create a sense of haste that is representative of distaste he feels at the fast moving nature of postmodern society. This is reinforced in the lack of 'acknowledgement on [her] part of [their] existence' showing that in this mayhem human interaction and basic manners can be discarded. This can also be seen in the interactions between Mr Mazappa and Miss Lasqueti  and their 'ribald stories' and 'whimsical nature' as they head towards the 'near[est] exit'. Ondaatje uses this to show the shallow nature of such relationships and the simplicity of their core, that it is mere entertainment. 

In his challenging of the empty nature of postmodernism societal relationships Ondaatje suggests that one of the causes of this is the existence of mystery and curiosity. The fact that the boys feel 'enthralled' by the foreign girl shows that interest in piqued by unknown people, the fact that the girl ignored them has no consequence on their 'waking even earlier to watch her skate'. Ondaatje suggests that the stimulus of the new creates an excitement that causes humans to overlook the flaws and issues in one another. Furthermore, Micheal's observation that it wouldn't have surprised him if she 'lept off the [ship]… and kept pace [with it] for twenty minutes' shows that the mystery and unknown nature of the girl creates an excitement and an unreasonable set of expectations. He also suggests that these expectations are often inaccurate and lead to an anti-climax that creates a materialistic relationship, which is seen in the boys merely following 'evaporating [footsteps]' that disappear as they approach. 

As a suggestion for resolving this conflict Ondaatje constructs certain characters to rebut the place of mystery in society. Ondaatje contrasts Mr Gunesekera with other 'exciting' characters in subtle ways. The description of the girl in the chapter heading as 'An Australian' gives an impersonal and distant impression through the use of the word 'an'. Contrarily, the phrase 'The Tailor' has a more intimate and individual suggestion, and even provides insight into his life and occupation. The use of this more personal description attempts to subtly persuade the reader to develop a more intimate understanding of Mr Gunasekera as a character, and thus support the views and values he represents.  Ondaatje uses the character Mr Gunesekera to suggest that depth in human connection is not formed in the complex, mysterious and distant, but rather the 'gracious', 'quiet' and 'courteous'. By constructing a character who does not speak and rather gives 'complex shrugs'  Ondaatje attempts to show the reader that mystery, excitement and 'enthrall[ment]' can be created in simple human decency rather than the 'animal' behavior of the girl or the pig-like laughter of Miss Lasqueti. Ondaatje's support of this can be seen in the interaction between Emily and Mr Gunasekera, and his 'delicate' touch and Emily being 'suddenly moved' creating a 'rare quiet moment at [the] table'. This interaction shows Ondaatje's belief that the postmodern society over complicates human interaction and relationships; that true honest connections can be formed in the seemingly meaningless connections. 

In his novel Ondaatje shows the complexity in both children and adults and thus questions why postmodern relationships are so shallow and seemingly meaningless, and this is often created through unnecessarily high expectations and deceit. Through his representation of various characters he shows the reader that the most important relationships are formed in the small and simple moments, and challenges the place of the peculiar and its resulting outcomes.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: bananabreadbelle on September 12, 2016, 05:34:10 pm
Only a paragraph - but in what mark range (in terms of the examination criteria) would the quality of this paragraph be if replicated throughout a full-length essay?
My class teacher's only feedback was to "relate more to the broader text", without any specific comments, but I feel like my last line was a summating/broader relating link?

Thank you very much, in advance! :)



Passage One establishes the disingenuous role of the Company in its projected intentions, particularly regarding its function in the colonisation of Africa. Descriptive vocabulary constructing a pervading tone of brooding suspense, signposted by Marlow’s inceptive observation that the “light was dim”, scaffolded by adjectives such as “ominous”, “eerie”, “uncanny”, and “not quite right”, elicit the reader’s response of suspicion and apprehension towards the Company; the discomfort felt by Marlow in the strangeness of being “made [to] sign some document” is thus able to be associated as the European equivalent of “weird incantations” characteristic to the foreign occult of the African "wilderness”, delocalising the Company as an unnatural modus within this “Christian country”. The satirising of the human figures present in the scene, as through the plosive alliteration of “pale plumpness” and one-dimensional impressions of “foolish and cheery" youths, further ascertains to an absence of credibility within the premise of the Company, undermining the assumed rectitude through its purported moral mission of bringing civilised clarity to the “mysterious niggers”. Thus the baleful mood prevalent in Passage One lends impetus to the rest of Heart of Darkness’s narrative landscape, one of dismembering tangible facades to uncover the incorporeal, and by extension the true state of the heart - both of humans and the natural world.

Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: giorginamaxwell on October 31, 2016, 06:21:13 pm
Does anyone have any passages for 'Dark Roots' by Cate Kennedy?
Wanting to do a little more practice and I've run out of passages!
Thanks for any help anyone can give  :)
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: rhosemary on November 01, 2016, 04:50:14 pm
I’ve been penalised in the past for going too “big” and not focusing enough on language in my essays, so I tried to put more focus on language features in this. Not sure how well it worked.
It’s based on the 2015 Literature exam passages- any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Throughout her early life, Jane is mistreated and judged prematurely; an “uncongenial alien” to the Reeds and, as introduced to Brocklehurst, a “naughty little girl”. The behaviours which create such an undesirable impression on weaker-minded people, however, are portrayed by Bronte as Jane’s virtues- her ability to maintain her ideas of propriety, her stubborn adherence to “God’s will”, and ability to resist the easiness of a marriage to St John are hard-won trials that earn the novel’s happy ending. A key factor in this virtuous behaviour is strict maintenance to a religious code that lacks the hypocrisies of Brocklehurst’s and rewards Jane with the climactic ability to “hear” Rochester calling her name at a moment where all in her life might otherwise be “sacrificed in a second”.
The dramatic imagery Bronte develops this sentiment through is nothing short of grandiose; with its  talk of “life rolled together like a scroll” and “death’s gates opening”, weighty concepts applied to physically impressive objects, the passage infuses a potentially unremarkable moment- fundamentally, just a conversation- with all the significance of a Biblical painting. While the enormity of this passage takes place before the crux of the dialogue, heralding it, the moment before the “miracle” of Rochester’s voice is relatively “still”, much calmer mentions of the candle “dying out” and the only description of movement being Jane’s heart beating “fast and thick” as the narrator shifts focus from grandness to the comparatively minimal and visceral state of her “flesh” and “bones”. Hence Rochester’s staccato cries of “Jane! Jane!” interrupt in a somewhat cinematic fashion, shattering the “beat” of peace and stillness. Bronte’s knowingly dramatic structuring of the scene infuses it with significance both thematically and on a more practical level- where formerly Jane’s marriage to St John would have been “impossible”, she is with her inheritance now a socially respectable choice, and as a single woman will be advantaged in society by the union. Her decision is potentially life-changing, and the refusal Jane ends up making- as well as her weakness to the “force” of his “kindness” are indicative of her character development from the childhood glimpsed in the first excerpt.
At the age of ten, in the face of overwhelming contempt from everyone in her “little world”, Jane confides in her friend Helen that she “cannot bear to be solitary and hated”, childishly listing with increasing morbidity the violent fates she would rather meet. The kindness of Helen and Miss Temple show her moves her deeply, in the same way that St John’s makes her “pliant as a reed”; however, as Jane’s life goes on, she is able to accept that facing dislike from figures such as Brocklehurst and the Reeds is no reason to change the character that inspires such dislike. The conversation in excerpt three demonstrates Bronte’s enforcement of this message, as Rochester- caught off-guard and uncharacteristically emotionally honest- confides in Jane of his “natural sympathies” to her, which make “owing (her)” a debt “tolerable”. His repeated breaking off and restarting while expressing this sentiment hints at the romantic inclination of these sympathies, while Bronte’s mention of his “proceeding hastily” is a sign of embarrassment that humanises further the once-aloof Rochester. Through the slow build of her romance with Rochester, Jane is able to find acceptance of herself on her own terms, which St John, in his attempts to coerce her into a marriage she shows no sign of desiring, cannot offer.
Bronte often distinguishes between sympathetic and unsympathetic characters by means of their attitude towards Jane- natural, given that the the narration is first-person and the story firmly entrenched within Jane’s own perspective. The “stony” Brockehurst, who intimidatingly dominates the first excerpt, mistreats the girls at his school and preaches austerity while his own family dress in “furs” and “silk”; Mrs Reed, while less of a tyrant, is much the same. Rochester, less judgemental, is able to accept Jane, to be struck by “delight” in his “innermost heart”, and in a marriage of equals to him she attains the happiness Bronte metaphorically envisions as a “shore, sweet as the hills of Beulah” in the second excerpt. While discouragements, the “counteracting breeze” of the disapproval of figures such as Brocklehurst, drive her back, Jane’s disinclination to stray from her principles of “sense” and “judgement”, no matter how it unnerves shallower individuals, are rewarded.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: MsEmilia on July 22, 2017, 12:55:42 pm
So I have to do an essay in response to two critical reviews ("Literary perspectives" is probably the one), and we've been allowed to pretty much write in advance, how are these paragraphs, if someone would be kind enough to offer me advice. (Attached are the reviews, but my writing should be easy to analyse stand-alone, my work will also be attached in case anyone finds that more convenient)

Both reviewers offer different explanations for Nora leaving Torvald, Wiaam argues that Nora’s decision to leave Torvald at the conclusion of the play is due to a realization that wealth is “Not that important”, and argues that Nora has become disillusioned with wealth, and thus that she no longer “Equates freedom with acquisition of wealth”. The marxist analysis argues that Nora is placed by men to be positioned as an “Other”, a secondary figure, as she is not only dependent on them financially, and thus weaker, but because they treat her as a “Doll” or a child, who they tell not to eat Macaroons or feed “All their opinions”.  Noelle89 argues that in order to break free of this Nora “Decides bravely to abandon her family to escape the restrictive confines of the patriarchal society she lives in.” However, this is not reflective of the text. The claim that Nora leaves to escape “patriarchal society” is contradicted by the end of the play where, it is revealed how deeply Torvald cares about his reputation and wealth, worrying over it far more than his own wife; despite growing signs of discontent throughout the play, in forms of eating the forbidden Macaroons and disregarding Torvald’s instructions on dancing the Tarantella, it is not until this point that Nora leaves, undercutting the notion that her motive was solely due to discontent with her expected role. From the start of the play, Nora has been lax about spending, even telling the delivery to “Keep the change” she gives him, indicating clearly that she cares about more than just wealth, and leaves because her “Miracle” never came, indicating Torvald being too distant from her for them to have a “Real marriage”. Nora leaves at the end of the play due to discontent with her current life with Torvald, not because she feels restricted in her role as a woman, indeed it is this role as “A wife and mother” that makes the decision easier for her, as she leaves her children in the hands of Ann-Marie, who she believes to be more reliable.



Both analysis pieces propose different primary influences of Nora’s thoughts throughout the text, Noelle89 claims that Nora’s thoughts are a product of her “Social and economic conditions” and strongly emphasizes this, suggesting that not only is she deeply concerned with displaying her wealth, but that she becomes more selfish as a result of her economic status. Wiiam claims instead that Nora is controlled by her society placing her as an “Other”, which reduces woman to a “Docile body regulated by the norms of cultural life”. Neither analysis is accurate, as the text presents Nora as a character who strongly defies cultural norms, despite outward obedience. While wives were banned from taking loans without the consent of their husbands, Nora took one out regardless, not being afraid to forge her signature, a social affront that Torvald, a character deeply concerned with societal pressures is afraid, as Nora is likely to be branded a “Criminal”. Additionally, she is willing to leave her children in the hands of her nanny, Ann-Marie, something that directly conflicts with the role expected of her. The ending of the play is the strongest example of this, as she leaves her Husband, a move so scandalous the play itself had to be rewritten to be allowed public performance. Nora’s defiance of cultural norms suggests she is willing to go against the grain of a society who would make her an “Other”, and that she stays with Torvald until she realizes that he does not truly love her, abruptly countering her opinion of him when she said  that she had been “So happy these past eight years.” Additionally, she demonstrates a willingness to disregard wealth for other things, not only does she put herself financially at risk by forging a signature for her husband’s sake, who in contrast won’t “Take any case that is absolutely respectable”, but she leaves behind the financial security of her husband, not knowing if she’ll even find employment soon. These actions directly undercut suggestions that she is bound by either wealth or to an oppressive society.


It is argued that Nora is reduced to a status of inferiority, by both Noelle89 and Wiiam, who respectively argue that Nora is treated as an afterthought and that she is treated as a child. Noelle89 states that “Nora is only an afterthought” to Torvald’s reputation, and that she is “Financially enslaved” to her husband. Wiiam argues instead that Nora is treated as a “Doll” in the titular house and that Torvald is frequently demeaning to her, calling her a “Skylark”, reflecting a wider society in which “Man tries to secure the good conduct of a woman.” Nora is treated as secondary by Torvald, who commands her to not be a “Spendthrift” and to not to tire her “pretty little eyes” or “sweet little fingers”, demeaning her to a state of dependence. Torvald is also possessive of Nora, describing as “The beauty that belongs to no-one else but me” and, just as Nora’s father treated her as a doll, Torvald makes Nora his “doll-wife”. Torvald also places Nora secondary to himself, declaring “I’m saved” right before her when he discovers he is free from the threat of debt. Both reviews correctly identify Nora as being diminished by Torvald, however Wiiam’s review suggests that this reduction is inherent to all women in a society, as “Nora and the other female figures...are the best models of the ‘second sex’ “ Linde, a prominent female figure in the text, directly contradicts this, while she had to depend on a husband on wealth, she simply leaves upon his death to seek employment, and quickly secures it upon arriving in town. Not only is she immediately able to find a job, but she is unwilling to give up her position to Krogstad when asked. Linde is not “secondary” to a man, as she is able to be financially independent and in control, and she is not a “weak and docile woman”, and instead of having been taught “not to take but to receive”, she takes Krogstad’s job and will not even give it back. Thus, while Nora is indeed treated as secondary or inferior to Krogstad, Wiiam’s claim that her state is the same as all other female figures in the text, and within the time’s wider society, is directly contradicted by Linde, who, unlike Nora, has not “agreed to the definition of the “One” and the” Other”.”


Both reviews posit that Torvald values his own reput over his relationship with Nora, Noelle89 claiming that Torvald cares about Nora more for his reputation than for her sake, stating that “It’s got to seem like everything is the same between us.” Similarly, Wiiam argues that
Despite Nora’s feeling that Torvald “Would sacrifice his reputation” for her, he does not, and that her feeling she is “Not worth her husband’s nobility”  is a sign that she is “Pleased with her role as the other”, as these thoughts cause her to feel she is “Not good enough to be a mother.” The claim that Torvald values his own reputation over Nora is very true to the text, even placing it above her own happiness, as when she tries to leave Torvald tries to save face by asking if they could live as “Brother and sister.” Torvald is strongly occupied with seeming to be of high social standing, not only stating that “No man would sacrifice his honour” but setting up the house to be “Furnished inexpensively, but with taste”, indicating a desire to be among the higher class. Noelle89’s claim that Torvald focuses solely on “Money and the status it earns him” is supported by the link between a well furnished house and a higher social standing, and Nora’s insistence that he is a “Bank manager”, as it is an indication that a job which earns him a great deal more money than before is directly a matter of pride. Wiiam, however claims that Nora is upset by Torvald’s hurt sense of nobility, as it causes her to feel unfit to be a mother, Nora instead decides to leave them in the hands of the maid, someone who is poorer and by Torvald’s own standard, less noble, because she is afraid of filling them with “Poison.” Being told that “All young criminals have had dishonest mothers” directly plays on her fears of forging a signature.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Charlie Locke on September 06, 2017, 08:44:04 am
Can we upload essays in response to past VCAA passage analysis'?
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: MightyBeh on September 06, 2017, 08:53:03 am
Can we upload essays in response to past VCAA passage analysis'?
Absolutely! :)
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Charlie Locke on September 06, 2017, 05:33:57 pm
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. Nora's self-sacrificial attitudes and duties diminish 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 hostility. Nora's profound realisation reflects the rebellion against the patriarchal system in which she resides. The patriarchal conventions serve as a catalyst for the tragedies and triumphs that are permeated throughout the play text.

Nora's 'frivolous' nature forces her to fall victim to Helmer's possessive mechanisms as demonstrated by the possessive pronouns. The reoccurring motif of the animalistic metaphor and possessive pronoun 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 masks 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 text. The objectification of Nora is accentuated by Mrs Linde's statement 'poor Nora' as this reflects both her immaturity but also the entrapment 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 husband whilst she too is manipulated and morphed into a more desirable being. Her feminine 'obligations' to her 'husband and children' manifest themselves into her life which in turn encapsulates her. Nora's self-sacrificial rituals when stating 'you mustn't think of anything else but me' reflects her susceptibility to objectification. '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 disloyalty. 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'. 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.

Nora's profound transformation from a 'little skylark' and 'inexperienced creature' to a selfless woman encapsulates Ibsen's portrayal of a developing and prosperous character. From a figment of Helmer's imagination, 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 behaviours. Nora's infatuation with perfectionism is shattered when she confronts both herself and her relationships boldly, 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'.

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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: clarke54321 on October 18, 2017, 10:04:00 pm
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 permeate are 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 manipulated and morphed into 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.

Sorry that this correction is so late (I'm not sure if it will still be relevant). But nonetheless, well done on the analysis  :) Great V+V statements,
 insightful exploration of Nora's complex development and wonderful, text-specific vocab. The only thing letting this down, is the close analysis. I'd suggest that you work more closely with the evidence to tease out well-founded conclusions. It's definitely personal preference, but I sometimes find it easier to start my paragraphs with a technique or certain event and then reach a mini interpretation at the end of it. All the best.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: denimaenema on October 23, 2017, 06:58:49 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: lilyrosee on October 23, 2017, 08:28:33 pm
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. 

Throughout Opened Ground, the celebrated poetry of Seamus Heaney commentates on life, death, and the state of the Irish culture. (try opening with something with a little more impact to show assessor that you have an idiosyncratic interpretation, definitely check out the VCAA past examination reports for some sophisticated opening lines) His poems, “Follower” and “Requiem for the Croppies”, (I know this is not a hard and fast rule but I would try and aim to discuss all three passages even if you just make a reference to the third, it would also make your analysis longer which would be good) 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. (this sentence is a little bit wordy - trying being a bit more sophisticated and succient) His own takes and liberties on Irish history as well as his own personal history make these poems shattering in its emotional complexity. (I know some people like to have introductions but if you are being too general then assessor will not be happy, try in your next essay to delve immediately into the analysis or just have one broad opening sentence and see if you think you need a full introduction)

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. (Be careful of over-using commas) Heaney seems to have been so close and admiring to the father. (This sentence seems a bit too opinion based, try something like ‘The boy describes his father as “an expert” at ploughing, illustrating his admiration for him and the potential for the boy to follow in his father’s “hobnailed wake” and take up his farming position as a man’) In fact he says "His shoulders globed like a full sail string”. (I would add analysis on to the end of the sentence otherwise it just looks like you are using evidence for the sake of it) This is an indication of how detailed the boy's admiration was to the father. (This is a bit vague, try being more specific) 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. (Remember to discuss views and values, what is Heaney trying to say about the transition from childhood to adulthood?) In the poem “Requiem for the Croppies”, (It would be nice here to link Follower with Requiem by either referencing a similarity or difference between the two, this also allows your analyse to progress fluidly) Heaney recollects (?) on the war “…On Vinegar Hill…”, (This quotation is a bit pointless, as the assessor is aware of the social/political context of the poem, use quotes that offer insight and develop your contention) as Irish rebels lost their lives in the battle against British military. (This seems like retell, try to include more analysis) The poem both opens and closes with the image of “barley”. (add something like ‘to convey…’, you need to offer more insight into why Heaney has opened and closed with the image of the 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 (thus,) 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. (Again, watch the frequent use of commas) Here, Heaney is stripping heroism down to its essentials, an idea and an action. (Too vague, why is Heaney stripping their heroism and discussing them as a collective?)

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. (You have already established this in the previous paragraph, offer something new) 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. (Again, this has already been stated - avoid repeating ideas) The father's work in the farm has been described as one that was done with precision and accuracy. (add quotation to end of sentence to demonstrate this) 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. (This sentence seems redundant) He also describes how the father's eye narrowed and angled at the ground along with an aspect of mapping the furrow exactly. (Interesting interpretation) 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. (Again, by jumping so quickly from one poem to the other your analysis feels disjointed and cut off) 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. (I have lost your overall contention) 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 (I feel like this is an assumption some of the assessors may not take kindly to, remember your audience) of God, plaguing the young Heaney in it’s ambiguity. (Be more specific) This is emphasised through “the scythes at cannon”, as the death and reality that plunges into the heart of Heaney. (Nice point)

The last three verses of “Follower” reflect on the present happenings whereby the boy says that in the present time the roles (between father and son) have reversed. Moreover, he says that the father is presently stumbling owing to the dictates of time. (?) As a matter of fact (avoid colloquial phrases like this - try to get straight to the point) he says "It is my father who keeps stumbling behind me, and will not go away". From this perspective (be bold, you overuse the word ‘seems’), 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. (finish with Heaney’s message and refer back to your overall contention)
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: chantelle.salisbury on October 24, 2017, 05:54:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: lilyrosee on October 24, 2017, 07:11:31 pm
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 :)
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: chantelle.salisbury on October 24, 2017, 08:02:50 pm
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 :)

oppps.... sorry... thanks for letting me know...
i can never get my head around where to post comments and etc.
:)
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Charlie Locke on November 04, 2017, 07:41:02 pm
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. Nora's 'sweet-tooth' and obsession with confectionary reflects her need to conform and continue her façade in her marriage. 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'. 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 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 and gendered sphere where he can once again become dominant and superior within his marriage. Helmer reverts to Nora as 'little Miss Stubborn', this metaphorically detaches him 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.

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'. 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 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. Helmer exclaims that for the 'last eight years' Nora has been '[his] joy and pride' and this justifies his commodification of Nora, 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 profound. 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'. The co-dependency 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 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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: clarke54321 on November 04, 2017, 08:11:58 pm
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.

Well done on the CPA  :) Wonderful ideas throughout this! I'd just recommend that you spend more time working closely with the language.
For many of your sentences, this can be achieved through an easy reverse. Generally you start with the V+V/explanation sentence and then follow it up with the evidence. If you can swap these, the close-analysis link will be made stronger for examiners. All the best.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Charlie Locke on November 05, 2017, 08:53:40 pm
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. 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 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 confounds 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 by their contemporary societal ideals that are placed upon them, however they contrast each other in the way that living a life without Nora present.

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. Helmer can be observed continually entering and exiting his study and this is contributed his characterisation as 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. Often, when Helmer and Nora are together as man and wife, Helmer possesses a patronising and condescending tone 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. 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'. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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 sphere, 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.

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. 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 woman. 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. 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 transition 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.

Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: clarke54321 on November 05, 2017, 09:26:00 pm
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.

Well done! There was much more analysis throughout this piece, and a greater focus on the task itself. Your V+V statements were stronger because of this. For the parts that I think could do with some more analysis, I've either emboldened or written next to  :)
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Charlie Locke on November 07, 2017, 09:28:14 am
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 unrealistic ideals, which are ultimately constructed by the broader Bourgeoisie society in which they reside. The emphasis of this declaration 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 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 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.

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 interwoven throughout her dialogue between herself and Mrs Linde illustrates the role of Nora within her private, social sphere. 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 hostility. 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' 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 '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 meet punctually. 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 challenge 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. 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. 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 emotion 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 and as Krogstad depicts her body to the top this emulates the nature of the secret she has kept hidden from Helmer, progressively surfacing. 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' 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. 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. 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' Nora is able to gradually become aware of her needs as an individual by figuratively questioning the oppressing ideals of her contemporary society through her actions and decisions.

Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Na__oia on November 08, 2017, 11:40:35 pm
So for part A of the exam, I'm writing on Baron in the trees. This is the first perspectives essay I've written that wasn't the SAC and I'm wondering if someone can give me some tips to improve before the exam.
Thank you in advance :)

Discuss to what extent is the baron in the trees about corruption of class?

“Calvino is… using Cosimo as a device to develop and test the limits of a utopian argument” –Eugenio Bolongaro. Through his manipulation of women throughout the novel, Calvino punishes the actions of the aristocracy. Juxtaposing the elite against their poor simply due to inherited fame and status perpetuates an interpretation of Calvino’s work. Calvino states “[the baron in the trees] is born from the image, not from any thesis which I want to demonstrate” opening the novel to a post-structural interpretation, as an ‘image’ from different points of view elicits different motives for action from different people.

In defiance of her rape, Battista was crippled into isolation and objectified as a pseudo ‘nun’. This positioning displays the power of men within the ‘obrosian’ Aristocracy and introduces a position of which women sit in society. Women are forced into shadows and critiqued by men of power as ‘grotesque’ and with an ‘artillery’ nature displaying how there is a coherent fear of being overthrown. This fear derives from societies known secret of women reaching an equilibrium to men. This is not tolerated in an aristocratic livelihood and thus punishment is in order. The silencing of Battista after being ‘seduced’ by the ‘simpleton’ belonging to the ‘Della Mella’ family displays a societal embarrassment not of the concept of rape, but her ability to defend herself. This contrast between the embarrassment of the ‘inherited strength’ of Battista and sequentially the ‘punishment’ supports the dystopia in shadows. The feminist movement was not until the 19th century in the western world, which coincided with the publication of the baron in the trees. The treatment of females within the novel and the illustration of them to the audience are stated by Matt Keeley as “a. horrible, b. masculine, or, c. anonymous” This mood created by Keeley displays women as an illusion to be feared. This separation of women from men and as such their possibilities for success explores how the class of the Italian nobles is corrupted.

The sheer translation of ‘Ombrosa’ presents the ‘shadows’ which promotes the understanding of a shunned social grouping. The working class within the baron in the trees qualifies the motif of ‘duty’ to establish an elite grouping against a proletariat working class. This considers the prospects of Cosimo being ‘fascinated with human labour’, reiterates the perceptions of the selfish aristocracy. Cosimo himself has an underlying desire to see the labour of the working class unfold. Although he ‘contributes when he can’ there is a strong notion of entrapped classes. The ‘sluggard court of France’ enforces the notion to a reader of a historic-based distance between the French and the Italian states. This social distance is a view that supporting the binary opposites of class contrasting an in group and out group for hierarchical standards. This pragmatic action enforces the separation of class and pressures a realist interpretation for society and Calvino’s fiction ‘society in general’.

Albeit, Cosimo does represent an aged ‘rebellion’ which to some does not distance himself enough from the oppressive aristocracy. “women screaming as he moves past” This corruption is represented from a young age in the ‘tradition[al]’ rule of the aristocracy. ‘A fig for all your ancestor's father’ is not only alluding to an insult distancing himself from his father’s ‘cold’ love, but the sour flesh of a fig enveloped by a leathered exterior, a simple tree grown fig is a metaphor for a corrupted and selfish caste system. Cosimo’s propel away from the aristocracy at a time of political unrest draws notions as an archaic aristocracy being overthrown. The ‘book of complaints’ suggests a society which considers a society as a whole. This cosmopolitan stance usurps the reader to view Cosimo as a Ombrosian diplomat vying for the freedom of opinion. These opinions constructed in the ‘book of complaints’ as an effort for a ‘Mutual esteem’

The obvious separation of names inherited from the Aristocracy proudly announce their position in class. An upper-class construct is established through names such as “duke”, “Baron” “Abbe” “Cavalier” which illustrate upper-class elite stances. Names such as “Ursula” and “Gian” compare against the “old person name” “Cosimo. The preference to be called the diminutive ‘Mino’ continues to perpetuate to the reader that there is a loathing for the strict traditions of the aristocrat from an early age. The shattering of the “busts” on against “marble” contrast the concrete interpretations of Cosimo. “No father I am not coming down”. Where the object of down in this sentence alludes to tradition. This contrast of class signifies where corruption comes from. “Cosimo’s place, always seemed to me, to be with us” describes the dystopia which masquerades through a crumbling utopian ruling.

Cosimo’s defiance of ‘traditional dinner’ and overall disgust for ‘society in general’ exemplifies the corruption within the novel. It is possible to interpret the interest that Calvino seeks through publishing this novel is to advance the view that corruption is due to the contrast of class.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: clarke54321 on November 09, 2017, 05:08:51 pm
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 meet punctually. 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.


Good job, again  :) In regards to your conclusion concerns, I wouldn't worry too much! Personally, I don't feel the need to add a seperate conclusion to my CPA. Rather, I ensure that the last 3 or so sentences of my final BP are bold/defiant enough to make an impact. This also allows me to naturally entwine the 3 passages/poems, and then comment on them as a whole and what they're saying.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: casssyy on November 10, 2017, 11:05:02 am
Any feeding on this would be awesome please!!

W.E.H Stanner’s The Dreaming and Other Essays frowns upon the lack of understanding European Australians have for the Aboriginal people. The following extracts: ‘Continuity and Change among the Aborigines’, ‘Aborigines and Australian Society’ and ‘Aboriginal Humour’ provide elements of different perspectives that allow majority of Europeans to misjudge the Aboriginal people. Stanner aims to portray Aboriginal people in a civil manner and demonstrate their human traits whilst discrediting European reputation.

Stanner condemns European lack of understanding and encourages them to dismantle their pride. Stanner reveals in ‘Continuity and Change among the Aboriginies’ that ‘we are concerned with our own reputation as much as, if not a little more than, the Aboriginies’ position’. Stanner aims to exploit the Australian government as self-absorbed rather than looking out for the safety and wellbeing of the Aboriginal people. Stanner further emphasises his disgust when stating that ‘it comforts us rather more than we have any reason to suppose it will comfort the Aborigines’. The Assimilation policy is antagonised as having provided zero benefits to the Aboriginal people as Stanner castigates the governments failed efforts. Likewise, in ‘Aborigines and Australian Society’, Stanner recalls the first-person account of experiencing European ignorance. Stanner explains that as he ‘was preparing for a lecture’ when someone asked him ‘why not tell us what makes it so hard to do anything for the Aborigines?’. Stanner rejects the unknowledgeable Europeans question as illiterate and uses it to introduce his argument. Stanner explores the misconception of Aboriginal people to encourage European’s to step back and comprehend their perspective.

Stanner advocates for a generous perception of Aboriginal people abnormalities. Stanner rejoices the differences between Aboriginal and European people and discusses their similarities. Stanner highlight that Aboriginal people aren’t a ‘main part of the trouble’ as they just perceive the world around them differently. Stanner explains that their ‘mentality’, ‘social habits and cultural oddities’ are conventional in Aboriginal society. The extract from ‘Aboriginies and Australian Society’ debunks their differences as possessing the issue with European and Aboriginal communication. Stanner supports the culture and aims to explain the differences as natural to Aboriginal life. On the other hand, Stanner depicts Aboriginal people as capable of interpreting and applying humour to mundane situations. Stanner explains that there is ‘no Aboriginal word for thank-you’ which may inflict concern into sceptical European’s. However, Stanner assures readers that such phrases would be ‘hardly appropriate’ in such a scenario. Furthermore, Stanner depicts his ‘Aboriginal companion’ as a criminal who ‘stole milk at every opportunity’. Stanner aims to portray his companion as able to comprehend his illegal activity whilst mocking the situation. The European understanding of crime is alternate to the Aboriginal perception. Stanner intends to expand European knowledge of diversity and promotes a harmonious society.

Stanner depicts Aboriginal people as capable of possessing human characteristics contrary to European belief. In ‘Aboriginal Humour’ Stanner’s companion can interpret his crime as entertaining and makes a ‘rust’ joke from the empty cans. Stanner includes this anecdote to reveal that Aboriginal people are efficient in humorous exchanges and share this quality with European’s. Likewise, in the second extract Stanner emphasises that Aboriginal people are ‘in every essential human respect, much of a muchness with us’. Stanner aims to reveal the human traits embodied in Aboriginal people and allow Europeans an understanding of Aboriginal culture and society. Stanner ‘invite(s)’ his readers to figure out the comparison between races in an attempt to diminish racial prejudice. Stanners purpose in constructing his essays is to explore Aboriginal people and portray them in a positive light and explain their human qualities.

Stanner’s investigative anthropologist instincts aim to discredit the Australian governments failed attempts in assisting the Aboriginal people. The first passage begins with a bold statement exclaiming that ‘There is no reason to believe that many Aboriginies want the kind of future which is predetermined by assimilation.’ Stanner reveals the harsh reality of assimilation policies and how it has negative consequences on Aboriginal mentality. Moreover, Stanner states that the ‘policy does not envisage the Aboriginies as having any right of option’. Stanner believes the concept and application of assimilation provided no benefits to Aboriginal people but rather dehumanised them. The Aboriginal people were denied choices and rights due to European racism. Similarly, in ‘Aboriginies and Australian Society’ Stanner reiterates that ‘our measures and methods should work’ however they did not. The European understanding of racial difference applied incorrect and unfair treatment to affected individuals. Stanner heavily believes that the segregation of races is a ‘comparative failure’ in every aspect. Stanner aims to enlighten European misconception and alert the Australian government of their wrongdoing.
The provided passages focus on a particular aspect in Aboriginal society, whist integrating the human characteristics embedded in Aboriginal people. Stanner reveals European and government official ignorance poses catastrophic consequences on Aboriginal livelihood. Ultimately, Stanner celebrates the racial difference between European and Aboriginal people and leans for a brighter future in Australian society.


Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: EdgyPotato on November 12, 2017, 04:01:08 pm
If possible, feedback for this piece would be appreciated. This was done in response to some self-chosen Heart Of Darkness passages

It is revealed by Conrad that European colonisation is a greedy, corrupting practice, founded on false justifications. Conrad subsequently heavily condemns the practice of colonialism on these grounds, suggesting that the “emissaries of light” these colonisers act as are instead bringers of brutality and are corrupted by their own greed.

Conrad exposes that colonialism exists largely to satiate the greed of colonisers, and condemns it as such. This is made explicit through those throughout the stations within in Africa. Here, in hopes to earn percentages for themselves, the men fixate on Ivory. Ivory is assigned such significance the word would “seem to ring in the air”, revealing how much it is valued by those within blah. This fixation on Ivory collection for personal gain is further emphasized by Kurtz, who has achieved notoriety for his “stacks” of Ivory. In the third passage, Marlow, meeting Kurtz, is confronted with the deep obsession Kurtz has built in regards to the collection of ivory. Kurtz, despite his illness, insists that the group that has come to save him is “interrupting [his] plans” and that he is “not so sick as you would like to believe.” Later, the extent to which Kurtz’s obsession has drawn into “a spell” is revealed as, in his sickened state, Kurtz still crawls towards a local tribe. The significance of this being that, as Kurtz is revered by the natives, and that Kurtz is attempting to regain the accumulated power and status he has acquired. In this way, it is revealed that Kurtz, through his accumulation of Ivory and worship by the natives, has come to be possessed with a desire to obtain power and status. Furthermore, Marlow’s comment in the first passage that “the company was run for profit” emphasizes that colonial practices are undertaken only for personal gain. In this way, the suggestion that European colonisation exists as a force to spread “the germs of empire”, and thus, civilisation is undermined. Conrad instead condemns that imperialism is undertaken purely for the greed of those colonisers.

Conrad further decries colonialism by undermining the notion that European colonisation is for the good of the African natives. This is achieved by Conrad through the suggestion that the idea of civilising the “savage” natives is ultimately a hollow one. In the second passage, Conrad creates imagery of a large, looming forest. The “empty reaches”, “still bends”, “high walls” and “millions of trees” crafting the landscape through which Marlow travels. This depicts Marlow travelling through the thick, imposing jungle as if he was akin to the natives, cut off from the artificial environment of his own society. Furthermore, the Furthermore, Marlow’s imagery of the steamboat he travels in as a “grimy beetle” heightens his return to a natural landscape. The significance of this is made clear when Marlow shortly comments that the boat, for him, seemed to travel “towards Kurtz - exclusively”. This suggests that, much like the natives, Marlow has become enamoured with Kurtz, and deeply wishes to meet him. In this way, Conrad suggests that, away from the trappings of his own European society, Marlow becomes like the natives in Africa. This is further reinforced when Marlow throws his shoes overboard after his helmsman dies, revealing superstitions like those held by the natives. Conrad therefore criticizes the notion that European colonisation exists to spread civilisation, by suggesting both the colonisers and those they colonise are just as savage.

It is revealed and decried by Conrad that European colonisation, being a brutal practice, is maintained through deception. This is made most apparent in the first passage, when Marlow discusses his expedition with his Aunt. Being described as a “lower sort of apostle” in his journey, which causes Marlow to comment that “such rot” was likely feed to his aunt from newspapers. In this way, Conrad suggests that the notions of spreading truth and god to the dark African continent are lies told to placate the public. This is furthered when Marlow hints to his aunt that “the Company was run for profit”, revealing the true motive behind European colonisation. In the deflection of this claim, Marlow’s aunt is used by Conrad to represent a deluded public. This is emphasized through the statement that women are “out of touch with the truth”. This statement is used by Conrad to suggest that women, largely being absent from colonial proceedings, are protected from the reality of it. This is furthered by Marlow’s changing attitude towards Kurtz, who represents the worst of colonisation, develops as he travels deeper into the jungle. Initially, Marlow comes to revere Kurtz, much like the natives. However, after being confronted with Kurtz’s “raiding the land” and gruesome keeping of heads on pikes, comes to wish to be rid of the memory of Kurtz, and to reject the notion of his greatness. This indicates that the public, such as Marlow’s aunt, who support European colonisation would come to dislike it following direct exposure. Conrad therefore reveals that the brutality of colonisation, which would otherwise cause outcry against it, is excused through deception. In this way Conrad exposes that these colonial practices are so brutal they must be maintained through deceit, and as such, condemns them.

Conrad also reveals that colonisation is a corrupting force, that can undermine even the best of Europe. In the first passage, Marlow discovers that he was presented as an “exceptional and gifted creature” by his aunt. Furthermore, this is built upon by the statement that Marlow will be “weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways’. All suggesting Marlow to be a great figure who will act in the best interests of Africa. Marlow’s presentation as being gifted is much like that of Kurtz, who is known for being a great musician, artist and writer. Much like Marlow too, Kurtz was expected to act to civilise the African natives. This is revealed through Kurtz’s being tasked with writing a report for the a group dealing with the “suppression of savage customs”. As such, Kurtz’s own downfall is presented as an ominous of what could become of other Europeans, such as Marlow. The development of Kurtz’s own madness, leading him to append his report on how to civilise the African natives with the phrase “exterminate all the brutes”, is suggested to be something that other colonists are susceptible of falling prey to and oh god sentence. Marlow’s own journey into the “heart of darkness” therefore becomes one in which he confronts Kurtz, who represents what he could very well become. This notion that Marlow could become like Kurtz is furthered by the other men Marlow meets throughout the stations he passes. These men, in order to obtain percentages, have developed an obsession with Ivory, such that the mere word “would seem to ring in the air”. In this way Conrad suggests that even those presented as the best of Europe, such as Kurtz and Marlow, are susceptible to becoming enamoured with their own greed. Therefore, Conrad reveals that European colonisation is a practice which reflects a darkness within the whole of European society. Conrad therefore exposes that European colonisation, being a savage and brutal practice, serves to undermine the notion of European superiority over the natives. As such, Conrad condemns colonisation, by suggesting the colonisers are no better than those they oppress, and are easily corrupted by their own greed.

In conclusion, Conrad undermines justifications used for European imperialism, and reveals it to be a selfish, corrupting practice.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Hala119 on February 20, 2018, 10:28:15 pm
If you want feedback on an essay, post it here! The compilation thread is for 'model' essays'.

Hey, this is just a paragraph excerpt from my Literature essay on Little Miss Sunshine. Any feedback would be appreciated :)

Contention: Little Miss Sunshine explores the distinctions between upper and lower class in relation to the role of wealth and status in American society by exposing opportunities, possessions and events, or lack thereof.

Paragraph:
In Little Miss Sunshine, directors Dayton and Faris portray the lack of opportunities the Hoover family has as a result of their low social status when compared to the upper classes. Throughout the film, the directors draw attention to the characters of Richard and Frank as well as their close relations with upper class men. Richard’s character is portrayed as a man adamant on signing a book deal that discusses nine steps that distinguish winners and losers. Because Richard is part of the commercial middle class, he believes that in order to ‘win’ at life, he needs to work hard to make his name heard. However, when we see that Richard is at the mercy of upper class members who usually prefer to buy products that originate from well-established people, the idea that because Richard is not popular or wealthy, he is not heard, is emphasised. The directors highlight upper class members such as Stan, Richard’s ex-agent, who explains to him that the only reason the business failed is because ‘nobody’s heard of [Richard]. Nobody cares.” (Stan) The readers are therefore able to interpret that lost opportunities usually follow lower class members who are not of high status in American society. Furthermore, Frank is also part of the middle class, which therefore limits his opportunities. The directors highlight the distinction between Frank and his rival, another Proust professor, Larry Sugarman: While Frank pines after the man he loves, his rival is able to receive the affection and love Frank desperately hopes for. From a Marxist perspective, the readers can draw the conclusion that the reason this has happened to Frank is a result of his social status. The directors draw attention to the different luxuries both scholars have, namely the instance where while Frank purchases porn and a cold drink after exiting his beat-up, barely operating bus, Frank’s unattainable lover greets him while directing Frank’s attention toward Sugarman’s expensive car. Thus readers can assume that Frank’s lost chance relates to the lack of luxuries that he could provide. Ultimately, through characters such as Richard and Frank, who are of low social class, the directors are able to emphasise the link between limited possessions and lost opportunities.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: kadesal on March 10, 2018, 11:08:17 pm
is this thread active anymore??? one way to find out
(this is the script for my oral SAC, its meant to be under 5 minutes  :'()
INTRODUCTION:
In Gwen Harwood’s poems, ‘Prize Giving’ and ‘In the Park’, a feminist lens highlights the varying degree to which women can convey power through their respective roles, a school-girl ironically – appears to be much more emotionally empowered than the mother of the latter poem.
BODY PARAGRAPH 1:
[In Prize-Giving] Harwood’s focus on the male intellectual is utilized to explore the spectrum of intelligence in a matriarchal setting. On account of Harwood’s upbringing by several dominant female figures in her life - her mother being an active feminist in the community whilst her grandmother earned her own living until she reached eighty – has shaped her writing to be an exploration of the influence of female figures in society. In terms of structure, the ABCBCA rhyme scheme allows every line to work in synergy with one another to produce a perfect rhyme. Harwood refuses to stray from this systematic form to emulate Eisenbart’s projected image of composed immaculacy. In addition, Eisenbart is strictly referred to with the honorific ‘Professor’ and the omission of his first name, typically reserved for official addresses – establishes his demand for respect. In addition, the dactylic meter which is occasionally disrupted is indicative of the focalised perspective of Eisenbart’s social image teetering on the edge of dismantlement, which is disguised by the seemingly-perfect rhyme. The introduction of a second person disrupts the dactylic meter, in which the whole line, ‘one girl sat grinning at him, her hand bent’ is narrated in iambic pentameter. Though it immediately resumes its dactylic form, it is still subject to fluctuations. The significance of the schoolgirl’s mockery of his Rodin’s Thinker-like pose demonstrates her awareness of Eisenbart’s attempt to pose as an intellectual. Her confidence in mocking the figure of intended respect is further established not only by these disruptions – but by the visual imagery Harwood employs to instil the divergence of the female persona in the audience. Unlike the student body which is generalised as a 'mosaic of... blonde, black, mouse-brown [heads]', their appearance described as a collective with the use of alliteration of the 'b' sound, the 'titian-haired' persona does not fit within these constraints ; delineating her individuality. Overall, Harwood attempts to convey the fragility of the male ego through Eisenbart's persona, in which he begins to see himself as an oxymoronic 'sage fool' in his reflection upon witnessing the similarly ironic schoolgirl's 'master's air'. Both Eisenbart and the schoolgirl are therefore relegated to oxymorons themselves – in which their appearance is not at all reflective of their intelligence.

BODY PARAGRAPH 2:
In ‘In the Park’, she similarly utilizes the focus on an individual to contradict the societal expectation of the maternal role. Motherhood in this context, as opposed to artistic depictions of it throughout history, namely Madonna and Child, is instead portrayed in a negative light by the persona being consumed by it. In terms of structure, a sonnet typically carries connotations of the romantic and sublime - which is starkly contrasted against the tedium of the mother’s life, as well as with the varying anapaestic meter, which when narrated is monotonous, devoid of any melody – whilst retaining a more fluid and casual tone through the variation. In the first quatrain, this is interrupted by a caesura (-) succeeded by the spondaic enjambed line ‘too late’ to emulate the halting thought process of the mother. The sudden interruption could be interpreted as a moment of regret, followed by a solemn lament for the potential future with this past object of love. Alternatively, the focalisation of a third person perspective represents a god’s eye to accurately and objectively describe the mother’s menial life, whilst being able to include phrases that otherwise would not have been incorporated into the poem by a first or second person perspective without bias. For example, the line,  ‘to the wind she says, ‘They have eaten me alive’’, would not have been heard by any other party. Here, the auditory image of her speaking into the wind implies a sense of regret for what she’s said, willing its meaning to be carried into the wind and to ultimately disappear. Her infinitesimal existence is once again re-iterated as her words are evanescent; immediately disappearing – conveyed to no-one except for an inanimate entity. In essence, the idea Harwood attempts to convey through this poem can be condensed easily into the separated rhyming couplet, the first line ending with ‘watch them thrive’, the latter ending with ‘they have eaten me alive’. The oxymoron between the concepts of a healthy child developing in contrast to the mother being eaten alive psychologically highlights the parasitic relationship between a mother and child. The audience is able to understand through the use of an oxymoron specifically; that there is a duality to motherhood, a conflict between living for oneself and for one’s children.
CONCLUSION:
With the opposing personas presented in the poems, Harwood attempts to reinforce the imperative role of women in contemporary society whilst simultaneously condemning those viewing motherhood as an impediment to their individuality.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: hums_student on April 08, 2018, 09:50:39 pm
Someone please tell me everything that's wrong with my essay. Feel free to be as mean and critical and harsh as you like!  ;D I won't hate you

This is a practice prompt on CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF my adaptations and transformations SAC happening first week back in term 2!

Richard Brooks’s film adaptation of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof renders Big Daddy the focus of not merely the second act but rather of the entire text. Discuss with reference to both the play and the film.

Between the construction of Tennessee Williams’s play Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and its transformation into the 1958 film, it is evident that meaning has been altered due to the time period and the audience’s views and values at the time as well as the different methods of presenting the text in the form of a play script and as a film.

In the script Big Daddy makes no appearance in act one with the exception of being mentioned by others, hence ensuring that the audience’s focus does not stray away from Brick’s relationship with other characters such as Maggie and Skipper. By contrast, in Richard Brooks’s film adaptation Big Daddy is introduced much earlier. Without the restrictions of the stage, the film is able to show Big Daddy’s arrival in his private plane and Maggie taking him back to his plantation. Unlike the original play, where Big Daddy is first seen at the beginning of act two, the film gives the audience a much earlier introduction of Big Daddy in order to focus on his character much more often throughout the text. The film particularly brings forward a different portrayal of Big Daddy’s character as loving and understanding through the shot of him willingly going over to Maggie to give her a hug. By asking Maggie ‘Does [Brick] love you?’ Brooks paints a more human and empathetic nature of Big Daddy who can somewhat understand the feelings of others, as opposed to the vulgar, tactless and self-centred character depicted by Williams.

Brick’s relationship with Big Daddy and the representation of Big Daddy himself changes drastically with the adaptation of the script into a film. Brick and Big Daddy’s complex and troubled relationship is conveyed within the play mainly through the use of dialogue, and while there are some instances of stage direction implying physical interactions between Brick and Big Daddy, such as when he ‘clasps his son’s two shoulders’ in act two after realising Brick was an alcoholic, all actions are dependent on dialogue. On the other hand, physical interactions between Brick and Big Daddy are much more easily demonstrated in the film due to a lack of restrictions posed by a play script. Scenes of Brick and Big Daddy’s interactions outside in the rain and later in the basement easily shifts Big Daddy into the limelight. The ability to create a visualisation of Brick and Big Daddy’s father-son relationship is largely advantageous for a film audience as they are able to see it in action instead of purely attempting to visualise it through the script.

One of the more notable scenes of the film is the scene shot in the Pollitt family basement featuring only Brick and Big Daddy. In this scene the audience witnesses a heartfelt and sincere conversation between the father and son, which establishes Big Daddy’s character as not merely a brash plantation owner but also deep down a humble and caring father. This is further emphasised through Brooks’s neglect to use the repeated phrase of ‘Wouldn’t it be funny if that was true’ for both Brick and Big Daddy. In the play this is used to highlight both men’s rejection of their spouse’s declaration of love for them, yet by neglecting this line for the film this proposes the idea that the men may not be as quick to reject their wives as they were depicted in the play. Big Daddy’s appearances throughout the later half of the film also differs greatly from the original play, where Big Daddy makes no appearance in act three, and any reconciliation between Brick and Big Daddy is completely absent. By adding this scene Richard Brooks is able to add more depth to Big Daddy’s character by implying that the audience was only introduced to a shallow portrayal of Big Daddy in the play and that there is much more to his personality.

Therefore, it can be seen that the changes made through the transformation of the play Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and its 1958 film adaption significantly alter the role of Big Daddy within the narrative by rendering him the focus of the entire text.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

It's probably a bit short (just under 700 words). Anyway please tell me where I need to improve on!
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Primenumber32 on April 12, 2018, 05:19:27 pm
Hi, this is an article analysis and I would greatly appreciate some feedback on how to improve and what to keep doing.

This is the link to the article, https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sadly-us-will-not-learn-from-latest-carnage-20171003-gytirg.html

This is my analysis:

Analysis: Sadly, the US will not learn from latest carnage.
The October Las Vegas shooting again reignited prolific Australian media coverage regarding the issue of gun control in America. Unlike the USA, with its vastly opposing views, Australian media has universally condemned America for not taking significant action against gun violence, with many lamenting the fact that such massacres will continue. “The Age”, in its editorial ‘Sadly, US will not learn from latest carnage’ (4/10/17), asserts that more guns will not make America safer. Using an exasperated tone, the editor echoes most of the readers acceptance that America needs to implement tougher gun laws for the safety of its citizens. More significantly, the editor’s concern is that America will not change its law; mirroring the belief of most Australian readers. 
From the outset, through the headline, the editor makes his contention clear, not only showing the newspapers’ conviction, but also allowing himself to align with his readers’ frustration at America’s inability to enforce more stringent gun laws. To elicit feelings of anger, the headline begins with the despairing word “sadly” and ends with the highly charged word “carnage” which connotes savageness. Following traditional editorial style, the editor presents a reasoned discussion that increases in assertiveness, in this case moving from the horror of the shootings, to Australia’s solution which is also used to rebut the belief that evil “cannot” be “regulate[d]”. Accordingly, the editor aims to create an impression that he has carefully considered the arguments for and against tougher gun laws, thus leading his readers to accept his view as balanced and thoughtful: that America should change its gun laws but it “will not”. Moreover, the editorial ends with a clear contention presented in short sentences to convey assertiveness. 
The editor’s opening paragraph highlights the difference between America and Australia to advocate that guns are the issue. The repetition of the phrase “once again” is designed to mirror the readers’ frustration that unlike Australia, America has not learnt from their previous mass shootings. To support such a position, the editor Initially coerces readers to see a strong and respectful connection between Australia, and America by inclusively asserting that “we” are “bound” by ties of culture, history, language, family, friendship”, however, he then quickly counters this with a dichotomy with respect to America’s “utterly alien” “love affair” with guns, thus, aiming to convince the audience to align not only the writer but their country- Australia’s stance on the importance of establishing safer gun regulations. 
Within the pieces body, the editor systematically explores the horror of the shootings and correlates it to lack of stringent gun laws. Using the power of three, he positions readers to view an absurd legal situation where one can attain “high powered” weapons “without raising the slightest alarm” and further, bring the weapons into a hotel “unremarked”. Furthermore, the editor depicts the horrific destruction that guns can cause by incorporating the relatable experience of the “time” to make tea which is designed to shock Australian readers and thus provoke them to believe that tougher gun laws may have prevented the mass shooting. Moreover, the incorporation of the word “maim” which connotes actions of mutilation and deformity along with the word “slaughter” which is related to the killing of animals is intended to compel the visualisation of the horrors that current gun laws allow. This is reinforced with the statistics that since the “Sandy hook Elementary school killing” there has been “more than 1500” similar acts, convincing readers to see his arguments as being supported by facts, thus framing his editorial as being indisputable.  Overall, the author aims to give readers better perspective of the horrors that guns are inflicting to emphasise the importance of changing gun laws.
Another approach by the editor is to show that there are possible solutions to the gun problem, but America is not listening. By declaring that Australia has not experienced a “mass shooting” since implementing tougher gun laws, the editor intends to encourage readers to see a clear cause and effect relationship; less guns leads to less gun violence.  His assertation (contrary to common American belief) that Australia has “not brought security at the price of liberty” implies that the concept of freedom is subjective and shows that, unlike Americans, who believe a gun to be a “precious…symbol of freedom”; Australian’s view “lives” as being “precious” and free to live without being “casually ended by lone madmen”. Highlighting that Americans must look beyond a flawed “ideology” and instead use “evidence” to ground their perspective and consequently conclude that currently guns are but a “cancer on their society”.
After providing a rebuttal to the argument, that to take guns away is take away one’s freedom- the editor ends his piece by presenting two other rebuttals, again- to demonstrate the fallibility of points that support the push for more guns.  By contending that “if every concert goer” of the Las Vegas shooting had been armed it “would not have saved them” and emphasising this with the use of a standalone quote, the editor aims to appeal to readers logic and thus convince them that arming concert goers would have made no difference as the man was “32 floors above”. Next, with a mocking tone, the editor uses the governor, Matt Bevin’s tweet that “you can’t regulate evil” against him, implying that such stance has not worked before in America and thus should not continue to be used as an argument. Instead Suggesting that if these acts are truly “random” and “unpreventable” then the most one can do is “disarm this evil” and ironically regulate it.   



Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: jayreichelt on April 19, 2018, 12:46:31 pm
Hi everyone! This is my passage analysis on Cut, Words and Arrival of the Bee Box by Sylvia Plath. I would really appreciate some feedback on it in...

Passage Analysis: Arrival of the Bee Box, Cut, Words
Use two or more of the set poems as the basis for a discussion of the poetry of Sylvia Plath
Sylvia Plath utilises her poems as a catalyst for examination of power. This authority, and influence exists in many forms in Plath’s life, from internal conflict to marital matters.

The first hint of power and conflict is introduced via “Cut”. The use of opposing forces, such as “pilgrims” and “Indians” or “Babushka” and “Redcoats”, depicts the wound as a war between two sides similar to a marital dispute. These characterisations allude to the concept of rivalry and power as they are so drastically different in description and meaning, they naturally exist as opposition. It is thought that Plath is inundated with feelings and loss of power during this time due to her divorce with Ted Hughes.

The allusion to Plath’s divorce can be discovered throughout “Cut” when observing the language, detail and tone closely. There appears to be no discomfort in the injury, she depicts the scene almost as jolly and elegant with her use of “plush” and “thrill”, this gives the cut a sense of homeliness as one would find within a marriage (even when a battle is present). Plath’s use of an “onion” when describing the circumstances alludes to the idea of homeliness and family life in many aspects. It could hint at the role of women during the 1950s; cooking and cleaning, that Plath had to fill.

In the 1950s, society dictated how an individual should behaviour and interact with those around them. The words and pressures surrounding Plath held an unexplainable authority and power over her. If she did not give in to her role as a wife and woman in society, the consequences would be dire. These themes are channelled through Plath’s work, particularly in “Words” as she discusses the power that insults, ideas and opinions can have one’s life. This is evident as she uses metaphors, such as “horse”, “axes”, and “wood rings”, to stand in place of insults and the soul, and emphasise the power of such concepts. The “axes” are the initial impact and how it is over in moments, whereas the “horses” depict the ongoing jurisdiction of words even after the moment has passed. The “wood rings” can be interpreted as the layers of the soul and how axes can destroy and alter the layers of wood built over time. In this poem, it feels as though power has been forever lost from the character and taken by the inflictor.

 “Words” also approaches the idea that power can be taken away permanently. It is addressed toward the ending of the poem as she “encounters” the “dry and riderless” words on the “road”.  The imagery suggests that power does not need a face to be powerful. This concept is enforced by the use of repetition, for instance “echoes! Echoes”.

However, “Arrival of the Bee Box” has a different perspective and tone surrounding sovereignty and power. The modality of the character changes over the course of the poem, in the beginning low modality is expressed as they are unsure of what action to take and how to handle the situation as seen in phrases such as “how can I let them out?”. When the poem progresses and the modality increases, Plath expresses comfortability with the Bee Box. This conveys that the character is empowered and accepting of authority, they are not afraid of managing. This could be reflective of the recovery process of mental illness or inner thoughts, the bees, and her mind would be represented as the physical box. The character begins to understand and embrace the bees. This is representative of embracing trauma, inner thoughts, and the empower one may feel from doing so.

The theme of power is unmistakeable throughout all of Plath’s poems regardless of the matter at hand. From marital issues to internal conflict, the power and empowerment is always present in the foreground or background. For this, Sylvia Plath is a passionate, blunt, compelling writer clearly ahead of her time.



Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: DUK0002 on April 22, 2018, 03:15:54 pm
Masculinity is defined by how much power a man could wield, but this concept heavily relies on how society may view that individual. In the hegemonic masculine world of 1835 Russia which highly stigmatised competiveness and assertiveness, ambition and higher rank became synonymous to masculinity. In his short story, The Nose, Gogol portrays masculinity through the use of literary techniques such as the use of verbs and adverbs to describe his characters whereas Alexeieff and Parker’s ‘Le Nez’, manipulates camera techniques, sounds and lighting in their adaptation of the same story.
 
Gogol’s main protagonist’s main objectives in life are to climb the table of ranks and marry well, but in order for Kovalyov to rise in power, he first builds himself a public identity which makes it seem like he has more power than he actually does. He arbitrarily attaches the title ‘major’ to his name which literally means important or significant because it projects a more masculine impression than simply referring to himself using the more modest title ‘collegiate assessor’. ‘Major’ carries the connotation of the physical prowess of a military man, which not only fits the masculine archetype of a ‘warrior’ but also relate to the fact that in 1835 Russia when the people of civil rank could attain the same status as the navy, the armed services still took precedence, meaning ‘major’ has a higher prestige.
 
Gogol uses women as a symbol system to represent ‘Kovalyov’s’ masculinity because women can be a basis of masculinity. Prior to the loss of his nose, ‘Kovalyov had no problem approaching ‘women’ or ‘pretty girls’ and telling them ‘secret instructions’ and when his nose returned, Kovalyov made a point to ‘ostentatiously stuff both nostrils’ with snuff whilst chatting with Mrs Podtochin and her daughter. Gogol uses the adverb ‘ostentatiously’ which suggest that Kovalyov was trying to impress them with his nose in a pretentious display only to reject the females. Being able to reject them means that he still has a wide variety of choice, he is still desired by women of higher rank and to be masculine is to be attractive or desired by women, and not just any women but good-looking, high-profiled women such as ‘Mrs Podtochin’s ‘daughter. However, when he lost his nose, he ‘jumpt’ away from the slim girl at the Cathedral as if he had been ‘burnt’. Here the readers could infer that Gogol is suggesting that the nose is a phallic symbol. The loss of Kovalyov’s nose could be seen as a metaphor for a castration, which could be ruinous for Kovalyov because without his nose, he could no longer desired by the opposite gender, he is reduced to a lower class and the image he has embellished with his ‘major’ title is eradicated.
 
Whilst Gogol uses adverbs to illustrate the power that women have on determining Kovalyov’s masculinity, Alexeieff and Parker’s adaptation uses lighting and movement to convey the same concept. This scene where Kovalyov and a woman are on a rocking boat has relatively low-key lighting and the woman is the only figure in the frame which has an all-white tone causing her to become the centre of attention.The shadow ratio increases with each rock of the boat, causing each frame to become darker and darker which insinuates the passing of time. The only person which sways up and down is Kovalyov, whereas the woman does not move at all. This could elucidate the impression that Alexeieff and Parker are suggesting that women may have an effect in the destabilisation of Kovalyov’s position in society.
 
 
In addition to the movement of the boat, Alexeieff and Parker also uses some camera movement and set manipulation to further allude to Kovalyov’s destabilisation through the loss of his nose through the scene after the rocking boat. The animation dollies in to a close up of Kovalyov face to accentuate Kovalyov’s realisation of his missing nose. He unconsciously clutches it as the walls of his apartment opens up and pans to reveal a street full of women gawking, showing that the first thing that Kovalyov thought of when he found out he lost his nose was the women. To be desired by women is to be considered by society to be masculine, so this worry shows the power that the women’s validation has in affecting Kovalyov’s pride, and therefore society’s perception of his masculinity.
 
If Kovalyov were desired by women, other men would then envy Kovalyov, perpetuating the competiveness of masculinity. Gogol presents Kovalyov’s personified nose as being a ‘state councillor’, four ranks above Kovalyov. Even in an absurd scenario, where he witnesses his own nose having human characteristics such as a ‘face’ and ‘expression’, feelings of inferiority and jealousy still manage to creep into Kovalyov's mind. As aforementioned, the nose could be a phallic symbol, and in this sense, Gogol may be suggesting that in a hyper masculine world, the ‘nose’ is valued so much that it is given a higher rank in society. Kovalyov loss of his own nose is emasculating to the point that he cannot even display the usual masculine traits of assertiveness as he didn’t know how to ‘go about’ approaching it.  Moreover, when he did find his nose, Gogol uses the adverb ‘superciliously’ to describe how Kovalyov treated lower ranking soldiers as this specific adverb connotes that Kovalyov thinks he’s superior to others Kovalyov literally turns his nose up at them to display dominance, emphasising that the soldiers have noses which were ‘no bigger than a waistcoat button. The italics of the word ‘waistcoat’ highlights its connotations of being small and as mentioned before, smaller means less masculine.
 
 
This idea of other men looking down at Kovalyov when he has lost his nose is also explored by Alexeieff and Parker through non-diegetic Korean and Vietnamese music to substitute for the narration of Gogol’s ‘The Nose’. The improvisatory nature of the music usually has a slow tempo with long uneven phases but after Kovalyov has confronted his nose at the Cathedral and it promptly left, the tempo quickened and builds to a crescendo which can seem aggressive. The Noseless Kovalyov desperately tries to reach for other men at the Cathedral but the man he approaches disappears and other men quickly filled the space he vacated, coupled with the the dissonant harmonies of the soundscape, this action seems accusatory.  These men are seen with a full shot and placed closer to the audience whilst Kovalyov is only presented with a long shot. This type of character positioning subtly coveys to the audience that the figures which are bigger, the men with protruding noses, have more power, whereas Kovalyov lacked this power. This scene seems to suggest to the audience that when his nose left, Kovalyov no longer belonged in on the same level as these men who have longer noses.
 
 
Gogol portrayed masculinity through the use of narrative devices such as gender specific words and adverbs to directly represent masculinity for his readers whereas Alexeieff and Parker’s representation of masculinity was more deeply coated. Only through the subtle changes in the soundscape, lighting and camera movement can the concept of masculinity in the gender polarised society of Kovalyov’s world, be noticed by the audience.
 
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: rgkn on September 18, 2018, 10:30:50 am
Any help on this would be appreciated, I'm in Lit 1/2 and this would easily be my weakest subject, so this analysis will probably be well below the standard on this board. Anyway here's a piece of my latest essay which scored pretty poorly. All help is appreciated!
On Washington Square by Henry James:

In the final paragraph of passage 1 the reader is offered a glimpse of the author's underlying views regarding the romance and sentimentalism in the context of the novel. Mrs. Penniman's brother confidently predicts " Lavinia will try to persuade her [Catherine] that some young man... is in lover with her. It will be quite untrue." This detached and cynical perspective, in the particular context it is presented in teh text, appears to mirror the author's perspective. Of course it is not necessarily true that because a character states an opinion  that opinion is shared by the author, however the brother's statements in this particular instance are deliberately cast in an authoritative light. James describes the brother as 'very shrewd' and states the he 'understood' at the very least Mrs Penniman's 'turn of mind' if not Catherine's. These statements, which precede the brother's opinions, hand the following sentences a sense of truth and authority, giving the reader a sense of having been given insight into the author;s cynical point of view.

This insight that the reader is allowed is a brief break from the 'poker-face' of authorial detachment present in the rest of the novel. OUtside of the previously aforementioned lapse, the author's opinions are carefully removed from the specific descriptions of event and dialogues. Even when describing Dr Sloper's blatant misogyny - "his wife had een a reasonable women, but she had been a bright exception" - James offers no immediate comment on the validity or invalidity of these undoubtedly abhorrent opinions, at least not explicitly. Many modern authors would seek to immediately distance themselves from the sexist character by refuting the character's opinions through contrived examples or biased language. James' objective, recount style leaves Dr Sloper's opinions unchallenged in the short term. Dr Sloper's opinons are stated factually and only because they are relevant. The style with which they are communicated to the reader mirrors how a reader might imagine Dr Sloper would write in his notebook - cold and utilitarian. In doing so James attempts to create a straightforward, honest, almost scientific snapshot of the setting after which he named the novel.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: hums_student on September 18, 2018, 06:10:11 pm
- snip -

Hey @rgkn! I'm just another current lit student as well but anyway below are some of the changes I would make:

In the final paragraph of passage 1 (one) the reader is offered a glimpse of the author's underlying views regarding the romance and sentimentalism in the context of the novel. Mrs. Penniman's brother confidently predicts " Lavinia will try to persuade her [Catherine] that some young man... is in lover with her. It will be quite untrue." This detached and cynical perspective, in the particular context it is presented in teh text, appears to mirror the author's perspective (Through Mrs. Penniman's brother's confident prediction that "...", the author offers an insight into his own detached and cynical views.). Of course it is not necessarily true that because a character states an opinion  that opinion is shared by the author, however the brother's statements in this particular instance are deliberately cast in an authoritative light (This sentence feels a little wordy and awkward. Maybe just write "This possibly suggests that..."). James describes the brother as 'very shrewd' and states the he 'understood' at the very least Mrs Penniman's 'turn of mind' if not Catherine's. These statements, which precede the brother's opinions, hand the following sentences a sense of truth and authority, giving the reader a sense of having been given insight an insight into the author's cynical point of view.

This insight that the reader is allowed is a brief break from the 'poker-face' of authorial detachment present in the rest of the novel. Outside of the previously aforementioned lapse, the author's opinions are carefully removed from the specific descriptions of event and dialogues. Even when describing Dr Sloper's blatant misogyny - "his wife had been a reasonable women, but she had been a bright exception" - James offers no immediate comment on the validity or invalidity of these undoubtedly abhorrent opinions, at least not explicitly. This significantly differs from the style of many modern authors who would seek to immediately distance themselves from the sexist character by refuting the character's opinions through contrived examples or biased language. James' objective, recount style leaves Dr Sloper's opinions unchallenged in the short term. Dr Sloper's opinons are stated factually and only because they are relevant. The style with which they are communicated to the reader mirrors how a reader might imagine Dr Sloper would write in his notebook - cold and utilitarian. In doing so James attempts to successfully / effectively creates a straightforward, honest, almost scientific snapshot of the setting after which he named the novel.

EDIT - Please take my corrections with a grain of salt as I'm still in VCE as well haha! (Also I haven't read this book lol!) But anyway I thought overall it was really good, even though you said it scored poorly. Maybe approach your teacher about it? :)
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: DarwinsFinches on October 05, 2018, 05:22:40 pm
Hey,

Here is my lit perspectives on Cat on a Hot Tin Roof if anyone is willing to look over it?

Thanks in advance.  :)

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, “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” 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. Seemingly imploring 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 reflects Marx’s belief of the existence of a continual conflict of class within society.

The source of Brick’s “disgust”, the Pollitt family’s malignant and intrinsic view on personal wealth, results in the catalysis of his reduction from a college “football star” to a “hobbling man”. In unison with Williams’ 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 interplay of live human beings”, the audience begins to understand that Brick’s alcoholism and subsequent liminality 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 his position of helplessness whereupon he relies on an artificial “click” to grant him the piece he longs to experience. The hyper-materialistic and “deceitful” Pollitt family act as the product of the ironically coveted American Dream, and as a result, the family’s actions and behaviour results in a questioning of Western societal ideals, supporting the existence hierarchical class conflict. Through his depiction of Brick as a “broken man”, Williams constructs an image of Brick that is extremely pertinent due to his cyclical dependency on money to fuel his alcoholism. Thus ultimately presenting an irony where Brick’s solace of “Echo Spring” can only be achieved through his family’s exploitation of the lower class and continual funding of 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.

The mercenary capitalist structure which underpins 1950’s southern America imposes stringent and contrived ideals that culminate in the bitter and lonely unison between Brick and Maggie. Exacerbating the loneliness of Maggie through her tragic evocation, “living with somebody you love can be lonelier than living entirely alone”, Williams highlights the isolatory effects of Brick’s “detachment” from his capitalist family. “Disgust[ed]” by his family’s exploitative nature Brick withdraws from “the flickering interplay” that is the ongoing conflict of his family, rejecting Maggie’s sexual advances. As a result of Brick’s “detachment”, Maggie attempts to protect the integrity of her marriage in order to prevent herself from “dying poor”. A reflection of the consumer dominated 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 family. Adopting “mascara”, “bracelets” and an “ivory slip of lace”, she manipulates her surroundings to attempt to secure her financial prosperity. Serving as a reflection upon the social climate of 1950’s society, Williams suggests that a projection of one’s prosepity and financial success was deemed acceptable and somewhat 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’ play presents a scathing reflection of the exploitative nature of the upper class, reinforcing Marx’s notion of a continual and cyclical conflict of 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 America. His usual elaborate and extensive stage directions become less descriptive and astute in 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 character as secondary to the conflict of the play, Williams, can be seen to perpetuate the dismissive view of the lower class possessed 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. 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 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. The pertinent image of a “shrill” Maggie questioning herself asking “who are you?” presents an image of a grown woman, who at the admission of herself, and despite her opulent jewellery and “slip of ivory lace”, 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.

A social commentary on the effects of the elusive American Dream on one's own psyche, Williams emphasises that the relentless pursuit of fame, 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” source of their financial prosperity eventuate in the Pollitt's intrinsic and bitter feud for “the biggest land on the Mississippi Delta”.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Caledu on October 05, 2018, 08:26:17 pm
Thought I would have a go at correcting because I'm bored (and because I did COAHTR as well, but in term 1, so a while ago). Take my corrections with a grain of salt as I'm still a current student.
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 clauseCat on a Hot Tin Roofthis 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. Seemingly I 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 reflects Marx’sthe Marxist belief ofin 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’s malignant and intrinsicI don't think these are the right words. view on personal wealth, the source of Brick’s “disgust”, results in the catalysisThe 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 his position ofnot needed helplessness whereupon'characterised by a reliance on...' is more fitting he relies on an artificial “click” to grant him the piecepeace 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 is extremelyparticularly 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 funding ofthe 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 1950s the apostrophe is not needed southern America imposes stringent and contrived ideals that culminate in the bitter and lonely unisonthis is an oxymoron (which is bad in writing) between Brick and Maggie. Exacerbating the loneliness of Maggie through her tragic evocationthis is not an evocation, “living with somebody you love can be lonelier than living entirely alone”, Williams highlights the isolatorythis 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 conflict ofin his family, rejecting Maggie’s sexual advances. As a result of Brick’s “detachment”never use a quote more than once, Maggie's attempts to protectmaintain the integrity ofwithin her marriage in order to prevent herself from “dying poor”.are Aa reflection of the consumer 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 1950s society, Williams suggests that a projection of one’s prosepity and financial success was deemed acceptable and somewhatnot 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’ play presentsis a scathing reflectionindictment of the exploitative nature of the upper class, reinforcing the Marxist notion of a continual and cyclical conflict ofbetween 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 and astute in 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 character asis secondary to the conflict of the play, Williams, can be seen toas 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 Pollitts 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 Pollitts and disillusionment that they experience.those examples don't highlight any 'isolation' or 'disillusionment' The pertinent image of a “shrill” Maggie questioning herself, asking “who are you?” presents an image of a grown woman, who at the admission of herself, and despite 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 of fameyou 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 their financial prosperitythis is a pleonasm. you don't need 'financial'. eventuate in the Pollitt's intrinsicthis 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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: hums_student on October 19, 2018, 11:30:41 pm
snip
Hey! I'll give this a go, though take the corrections with a grain of salt as I'm also a current student.
I'm doing Cat as well, albeit from a different lens.
---
In the play Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Williams offers a harsh but realistic portrayal of the American Dream through offering an opposing depiction to the US public’s social, political, and cultural views (add a time frame, eg. views of the 1950s). The play demonstrates how public illusions pertaining to the American Dream stifle and suppress non-normative ideas regarding sexuality, wealth and prosperity, legacy, power, and freedom. and Through this Williams suggests that the economic stability and happiness the American people are after through the pursuit of the American Dream is a myth which may provide an appearance of fulfilment, but cannot offer an inner, spiritual prosperity.

Williams challenges the truthfulness and validity of the American Dream through offering a subverted and anti-heroic portrayal of Brick, whose outer image represents the most empowered demographic of 1950s American society. Brick’s appearance, which radiates the epitome of masculinity, as well as his background as a celebrated athlete and being the son of a self-made millionaire provides him with the perfect façade of living embodying in the American Dream. However, this seemingly flawless exterior is tarnished by physical attributes such as his limp and his alcoholism, as well as his suppressed homosexuality which is condemned by the heavily conformist and conservative American public. By this portrayal of a depressed, alcoholic, and limping former football hero, Williams introduces a sense of confusion and disorder to a seemingly stable and flourishing environment, challenging the notion of the American Dream that the achievement of a successful career fulfils one’s life. (Might want to add some quotes to back up your discussion.)

This idea is further reinforced through showing that Brick injured himself jumping hurdles, because ‘people liked to do what they used to do, long after they’ve stopped being able to do it’. Williams, through Brick, reflects the American public to be deeply immersed in their past conservative ideas, being unable to see that the needs of the society is changing. Brick’s act of attempting to jump hurdles emphasises the collective American identity of the 1950s, where the public pushed for a regression to the social conventions and expectations which were shattered during World War II. Through Brick’s injury in his attempts to relive his formerly, socially accepted ‘masculine’ self, Williams highlights the harmful effects of this conservative idea of moral correction on concerns regarding masculinity and sexuality by showing that these traditional values forced upon members of society ultimately cripples them physically, mentally, and spiritually, and confines them to their individual cages from which they cannot escape from. Through this, Williams seeks to subvert the fixed binaries concerning masculinity and sexuality espoused by 1950s’ conservative values.

Furthermore, Williams scathingly critiques material riches emphasised by the American Dream by depicting those in pursuit of it to be trapped and caged by their desires, despite the ‘freedom’ it appears to offer. Through the character of Maggie, the playwright seemingly portrays a textbook character of one who has achieved the American dream after escaping poverty, which appears to align with the concept that the equality of opportunity is available to all (maybe define the 'American Dream' towards the start of the essay instead). However, Williams illustrates the devastating impacts of Maggie’s desire for material riches by showing that her wish for wealth and inheritance caused her to be caged in a loveless marriage with a man who cannot stand her, urging the audience to see the failure of her personal life which came as a result of her achievement of the prosperous American Dream. In his essay ‘Victims and Divided People’, critic Timpane argues that Maggie’s personal failures were caused not by the forces of male dominance, patriarchy, or misogyny, but rather by ‘her own predilection for destruction, that is, her own desires’. (give example to back up critic) Through this, Williams condemns the destructive nature of the American Dream in its emphasis of material success at the expense of personal relationships. By depicting Maggie to be trapped in her desire for wealth, Williams disputes the concept of freedom in regards to the American Dream.

Finally, Williams condemns the rapacious materialism of American Dream as barbaric, exposes exposingthe fleetingness of material possessions through the Pollitt family’s love of materialistic luxuries and wealth. Williams describes Big Mama’s clothing pattern as the ‘markings of some massive animal’, which is immediately followed by descriptions of her ‘great diamonds and many pearls’, associating her materialistic possessions with ‘beastly’ qualities, proposing the suggestion of her love of these riches are barbaric despite her civilised image. (there are also some quotes from Big Daddy - 'the human animal is a beast' - they seem to work nicely here.) Additionally, Williams challenges the idea of financial success as an accurate measure of achievement through the character of Big Daddy, by portraying a prosperous and successful cotton plantation owner who appears to have it all, and yet is dying of terminal cancer with no means of passing on his legacy. Through this, Williams offer an elevated sense of insecurity and fear which starkly contrasts to the optimism and confidence of the public. The playwright demonstrates the capitalist material excess that has manifested deep within the collective American identity through his characters who grapple at the empty concepts of wealth, legacy, and prosperity, and urges American society to see beyond its shallow pursuit of materialism.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof challenges the perceived notion of the freedom, success, and prosperity which the American Dream claims to offer by demonstrating its crushing effects beneath the surface to those who pursue it. By painting this concept as oppressive, destructive, barbaric, and short-lived, Williams offer a harsh condemnation of the American Dream by depicting it as the factor which causes American society to be trapped on top of a hot tin roof from which it refuses to escape from.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: landem on October 30, 2018, 12:43:07 am
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’ and ruthless optimism within the text portrays a socioeconomic position which many theatregoers and critics would have 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.

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’. 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.

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 repeat the same cyclical nature of poverty as her mother, Delaney doesn’t mark her as doomed, structurally; 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 author 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, 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 playwrights, 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 proves 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.

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.

The Leopard-
The numerous romantic and ‘sensual’ metaphors, characteristic of Lampedusa’s writing, are inevitably found in all three passages. 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. 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’.
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 aristocracy. 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 evoke in the audience an emotional response to 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.
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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: erinations on November 02, 2018, 12:07:59 pm
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. It can be claimed that the destabilisation of Kurtz in form of his moral descent was precipitated by the corruption of materialism prevalent in European society. Furthering materialistic denunciation 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.

When embarking on a journey for “ivory”, a symbol of wealth and power obtained by the complexity of exploitation, 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 Imperialism. 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. 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 transparent 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.

   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. 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. 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 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 opposes 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” 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 of 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. 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. 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 desperation 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 the 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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: clarke54321 on November 09, 2018, 11:26:11 am
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’ and ruthlesssome 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 evoke in the audience an emotional response tofor 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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: clarke54321 on November 09, 2018, 11:44:54 am
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.
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: landem on November 11, 2018, 04:39:01 pm
Quote from: clarke54321
snip
thankyou so much!!!
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: Hala119 on February 25, 2019, 05:58:00 pm
Hi!

Can anyone help me with this practise essay paragraph for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof relating to the meaning of mendacity explored in both texts. My teacher says I should add in more evidence, make the construction explicit, and establish the key relationship between the two texts more explicitly.

While Williams portrays Maggie as the driving force behind the narrative pushing to rekindle her relationship with Brick, Brooks replaces her role merely as a housewife to question whether Maggie is being true to the morals of 1950s America. Williams, through Maggie’s naturalistic acting style, provides insight to her manic disposition where she is torn between her desire to placate Bricks’ parents by having children, as depicted through the playwright’s colloquial use of language directing Maggie to “straighten an eyelash,” and her own goal to re-establish Brick’s tolerance for her. The stage direction illustrating Maggie “ris[ing] fretfully saying: there’s so much light in the room” is erased in Brooks’ adaptation where he makes it clear to denizens during the 1950s that Maggie’s role to fit in with society’s expectations is hindered due to her insecurities about children through her aggravated tone of voice where she snaps “I would’ve sent sister woman a bill for these stockings.” The bright, almost blinding light set in the film’s adaptation questions Williams’ adamant revisitation of how the absence of a naturalistic “comfort of light” creates “ghosts” to haunt the characters and erases the human “extremities of emotions.” Although Williams vehemently draws attention to Maggie’s representation as a struggling woman during the 1950s, the director focuses on the film’s artifice of a gleeful Maggie, as directed by the 1950s Production Code, to illustrate the “light” side of life to adhere to audience’s desire to escape the truth of reality. By accentuating Maggie’s decision to “turn out the rose-silk lamp,” Williams appeals to theatre audiences who expect the playwright to erase the concept that materialistic possessions like the “rose-silk,” a prop representing the upper social class the characters are in, does not alleviate any concerns prompted by 1950s society’s “system” of “mendacity,” which Brooks appeals to. The playwright’s enthusiastic portrayal of Maggie taking on the dominant role by connotating that “tonight [they’re] going to make [her pregnancy] lie true” is questioned by Brooks’ adaptation. He reaffirms 1950s audience’s expectations for Brick to take control by demanding that Maggie “lock the door.” The sensual atmosphere combined with Bricks’ smooth tone evoke the audiences to feel contented with the ending although it is not “true” as Williams aims to present. Theatrically, Williams adheres to her audiences who expect Maggie to take on the superior role in her relationship with Brick whereas Brooks sticks to the gender roles of the 1950s to insinuate that no women has the right to question her place in the world.

(I feel this may be too long but am unsure how to shorten)

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Post by: lizjmorrell on November 08, 2019, 06:29:23 pm
Hey this is an essay I wrote for The Passion by Jeanette Winterson (Section B) - passage 1 : pg16-17 (Henri talking about the King and Queen and Bonaparte), passage two : pg60-61 (Villanelle has just met the Queen and can't find her at the casino), passage three : pg114-115 (Henri and Villanelle visit the Lady of Means on the canal)
Any feedback is really appreciated!!

Jeanette Winterson views passion as a transformative yet destructive experience that influences the life that one lives. Henri’s and Villanelle’s intertwined stories of their own passion and lives createthe background for Winterson’s discussion of a larger idea; that passion is what makes one’s existence unique and complete, inclusive of both the tender joy and intense disillusionment that passion may bring.

The Passion is a collection of stories that unfold in a non-linear way, this uncertainty of time bringing about of a disjointed, yet paradoxically, so elegantly crafted and flowing narrative. The lives of both Henri and Villanelle are filled with uncertainty; in passage one, Henri’s future is unfolding in a way that is both surprising and unsure for the reader. Beginning in a small village in France, the need to ‘rely on gossip’, potentially untrue stories, is highlighted by Henri’s comment ‘we might have been living on the moon’. Further depiction of his village’s separation from the rest of the world is seen as ‘no one really knew what was happening except that King and Queen were imprisoned.’ the lack of a defining ‘the’ before ‘King and Queen’ may suggest here that the young Henri saw the rulers of France as elusive and distant, with this lack of proper grammar acting as a defining characteristic of naive, of which this young Henri has plenty. From passage one, Henri’s future is so unclear, that in passage three he is almost unrecognisable in how he has grown and changed. The future’s tendency to be unpredictable is stark between these two passages, as Henri has gone from a young country boy in France, to serving in the army for many years, losing friends, falling in love, and has ended up exploring the ‘city of mazes’ with Villanelle. Yet, this uncertainty of the future is contrasted by the ‘Lady of Means’ as the ‘old creature’, unrecognisable now from her past as a wealthy, respected woman, foreshadows the coming events of Henri’s and Villanelle’s lives. Her wisdom adds a sense of magical realism to this point in the novel, as she comments knowingly on Villanelle’s life (prior to returning to Venice); ‘You have been in danger and there is more to come but you will not leave again’. This coupled with the warning to Henri; ‘beware of old enemies in new disguises’, foreshadows the climactic scene in which Henri kills the cook, an ‘old enemy’, now disguised as Villanelle’s husband. This fortune telling creates a sense of direction for both Villanelle and Henri’s futures, however, they still lack the certainty that one may desire.

As the knowledge of one’s future is generally not in reach, so too is the nature of passion; elusive yet encompassing. Winterson depicts Villanelle’s and Henri’s passions as simultaneously distant, yet so close to reach within the passages. Passage one depicts Henri’s passion for Bonaparte, as ‘we called him our Emperor long before he took that title for himself’; his loyalty for the man is unwavering and immense already at this point in the novel. Yet, when the time comes for which Henri may meet Napoleon, the subject of his passion becomes elusive as he writes solemnly, ‘so this was it, no glory for me, just a pile of dead birds’. The disappointment within Henri’s voice sparks an empathy within the reader as the young boy is left to deal with the cook, rather than meet the one he had so desired to meet for so long. Passage two also depicts passion as elusive; Villanelle’s first encounter with the ‘Queen of Spades’ is followed by an urgent desire to see her again. Surrounded by the fantastical celebrations of the night in Venice, Villanelle’s eyes are not focused on the ‘faces and dresses and masks’, rather, they are ‘begging for a sign’ of the ‘object of my love’ who ‘was not there. She was nowhere’. The urgency within Villanelle’s voice is at its highest at this point, her desperation underscored by flashes of images as she so desires to see the woman again. Thus, this passion of Villanelle’s, the ‘Queen of Spades’, is also elusive on this night where she is so desperate to see her again, just as Henri was, Bonaparte. Perhaps Winterson sees passion as a desperation, and ardent desire that encompasses one’s waking life at that moment; nothing else matters but the subject of one’s attention.

When passion is so elusive, the drive is only intensified; in absence, passion grows, yet, in presence, passion may be destructive. Henri’s disillusionment that he experiences having served Napoleon for many years, later in the novel, highlights how passion can enlighten one to the joys of life, yet also crush one. ‘Passion that comes later in life is hard to bear’; Henri views his passion as expired, as he states ‘if the love was passion, the hate will be obsession’. This obsessive nature Henri begins to have with Bonaparte, towards the end of the novel, has also been foreshadowed in passage three, as he is warned of ‘old enemies in new disguises’. As Henri kills the cook, his life is turned completely; this is the catalyst for his end in the story at San Servolo, as having served eight years in the wars, the cook is the first man he killed. This event is what leads him to turn bitter towards his previous passion, which ends up destroying him in the end as he is deemed insane and sent away to live in the mental asylum. A similar situation can be seen with Villanelle, as she notes that she has been ‘relieved almost’ at her lover’s absence, wondering ‘is it because she will return that I take pleasure in being alone?’. While being with the ‘Queen of Spades’ does act as the causation for greater depths of passion, Villanelle’s separation from the elusive woman, as also seen in passage two, is what makes the time spent with her so much sweeter. Thus, it seems passion thrives when it is not fulfilled, left to long for the other; unsatisfied and hungry.

Through her novel The Passion, Winterson has commented on the complexities and nuances of passion and its influence on one’s life. Henri is destroyed by his passion for Bonaparte, while Villanelle is set free when she willingly chooses to give up her passion for the ‘Queen of Spades’, as she is ‘wholly given over to selfishness’. Passion and the future are uncertain; they may pan out in a million different ways, yet the one way that is does end up is what matters. Through The Passion, Winterson has subtly and indirectly conveyed her view that struggle, disappointment and disillusionment is what makes one human, while the passion one experiences is what makes it all worth it, in spite of everything.