ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English Work Submission and Marking => Topic started by: 12AM on February 20, 2013, 10:45:01 am
-
I wanted a place in which I could post all of the practice essays I do for twelve Angry Men throughout the year.
I've never been the strongest English student and, being honest, I've found the start of year 12 a really massive step-up in difficulty from previous years. It's quite daunting looking at the way people write by their end of year exams and then comparing that to how I, along with many fellow classmates, am writing at the present.
Anyways, here's the first practice essay of year 12, any feedback would be brilliant, good or bad. I mean, feedback is feedback. Thanks. :D Oh, and the guidelines were we had to be between 600-800 words.
-----------------------------
'Twelve Angry Men is a play about how power can be misused.' Discuss
In Twelve Angry Men, written in a time when many of these men of society used their race, gender and social status to dominate and rule over others, author Reginald Rose presents a narrative that explores both the power that we as people have over others and which others have over us; examining how this power can be completely misused. The members of the jury are "faced with grave responsibility" and yet, we are able to recognise those that use, or rather abuse, power for personal reasons, those that don't acceptably or effectively use the power that they have been given, as well as the power that we have, or don't have, in the everyday interactions with others in our lives.
Through their role as members of the jury, certain characters choose to exploit what has been given to them for personal reasons, rather than fulfill their civic duty. Whilst this not only undermines the American judicial system, it also represents our society as a whole; that is, within our civilisation various individuals abuse the power that has been given to them because of political agenda, prejudice or self-interest; in the same vein that it can be seen that Jurors 3, 7 and 10 placed their personal bias, selfishness and bigotry, respectively, ahead of their responsibility. Through the stereotypes that the three aforementioned jury members represent, we are able to see Rose reflect on those who "don’t give a damn about the law", or rather, those that "don't give a damn" about their duty to society. This is still relevant to Australia's contemporary culture, in which politicians, celebrities, etc. place self-interest above all else and, just as the personal reasons of the assorted members of the jury held back and slowed down the jury from achieving progress and a correct decision, the self-interest that exists within politics and celebrity also hold us back as a society.
Not using the power you have been given effectively in an appropriate way is also an incredible misuse of the authority that you have been delivered. Although this form of misuse is quite miniscule in comparison to the prevalent use of selfishness that exists, it is arguably equally dangerous. This can be exemplified no better than by the defendant's lawyer; whom Juror 8 notes, "wasn't doing his job". The defense counsel, by letting "too many little things go", put the defendant in an incredibly precarious position. Not properly using what has been given to him is incredible misuse because power is opportunity and, despite the boy being found innocent, that's exactly what he gave up when he didn't "tear the prosecution witness to shreds" or challenge the prosecutions narrative; a greater opportunity to let a young man walk free. This enhances one of the great things about the judicial system. That is, as part of the civil duty that accompanies the judicial system, members of the public are forced to make a decision and make full use of the chance that you have, an underlying strength that exists in the democratic system.
During the play we are able to observe the various levels of control or “power” that some characters have over others in regular interactions and how such power could be, and is at times, misused. Throughout the play, Juror 3 and Juror 8 each attempt to control the jury room, although they do so in very different ways. Juror 3 is somewhat of an aggressive, dominating man, imposing his views on people from the beginning, telling the far more timid, simple Juror 2 that “We’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble.” On the other hand, Juror 8 could be seen as manipulative, excellent at the “soft sell”, able to prod and push others to come to their own conclusions that suit his agenda. Both of these jurors use their ability to influence others in an attempt to sway their fellow jury members to their cause. However, it is Juror 3 who represents those that choose to take advantage of their influence on others for personal reasons, being what Juror 8 calls a “public avenger”, and Juror 8 who represents those that use their influence as a beacon of leadership, fighting for the right cause.
Power itself is a powerful thing. Within the setting of a court case, Rose is able to explore the various powers that exist in the world and the different dangers that surround them. Through Rose, we are able to examine the risks that surround power, both in the democratic system and in society. We are able to view how it can be both used and completely misused.
780 words.
-
I actually got about halfway through marking this in so much depth and then I bumped my laptop charger :'''(
/cries out the Nile river/
I will be back, with a vengeance. But not right now. Busy crying.
-
I wanted a place in which I could post all of the practice essays I do for twelve Angry Men throughout the year.
Exccceeerrent.
I've never been the strongest English student and, being honest your use of language is good, I've found the start of year 12 a really massive step-up in difficulty from previous years. It's quite daunting looking at the way people write by their end of year exams and then comparing that to how I, along with many fellow classmates, am writing at the present. Hahahaha I did this too. One of my friends used to read VCAA high scoring essays with trepidation but ended up scoring higher than most on the exam!
Anyways, here's the first practice essay of year 12, any feedback would be brilliant, good or bad. I mean, feedback is feedback. Thanks. :D Oh, and the guidelines were we had to be between 600-800 words.
Well your new guideline is 800-1000 words, for now. 780 is good.
-----------------------------
'Twelve Angry Men is a play about how power can be misused.' Discuss
This was my exam prompt jajajajaja. I think it's definitely the more 'difficult' prompt of the exam.
In Twelve Angry Men, written in a time when many of these men of society used their race, gender and social status to dominate and rule over others good, author Reginald Rose presents a narrative that explores both the power that we as people have over others and which others have over us; examining how this power can be completely misused. Not bad at all. One thing I always did was 'contextualise' the opening line with reference to the culture or society of that particular stage of history. Starters included "Preceding the civil rights movement of the 1960s..." "In the height of the McCarthyist paranoia..." "Following the second world war..." - I'll demonstrate.. "In the height of the McCarthyist paranoia, the 1950s American Government promoted an obsession over capitalistic values and the underlying focus on the individual therein; propaganda, deceit, and fear of change were rife." (You could pretty much discuss anything of the time period relevant to your prompt in your opening sentence). I did this to provide a framework for future discussion... The above sentence isn't entirely perfect but I think it's very good (so long as it's matched by the following writing). It provides a base for you to discuss what Rose is asserting in relation to that point in history, warms the assessor into the content-dense nature of your essay, shows off your knowledge and writing skills (as should everything). After this sentence we would work in things very similar to the second clause of your first sentence etc, talking about how 12AM is utilised as a social commentary, or that Rose makes x assertion etc etc. The members of the jury are "faced with (a)? grave responsibility" and yet, we are able to recognise those that use, or rather abuse Don't do this again. you do not get this privilege in the exam unless you want to underline an entire word. I also think it would show that you couldn't use language in a way to achieve what you wanted. , power for personal reasons, those that don't acceptably or effectively use the power that they have been given, as well as the power that we have, or don't have, in the everyday interactions with others in our lives.Nice writing however I'd mention your three main ideas in a more specific sense. I can see what your getting at however at the end of your introduction I should know what you will be discussing, in specific terms, within the essay. Generally, three sentences, three ideas. However you can take a bit of creative license here depending on your needs. I might mention something like 1. Rose puts the adversary system of trial under fire in terms of power abuse of the State. 2. Rose utilises individuals such as 3rd/10th to demonstrate the way personal desire and xenophobia could be used in terms of power abuse (would also discuss societal traits heavily in reference to 10th Juror and some particular xenophobic quotes) and say 3. Rose utilises 8th juror as a demonstration of how power SHOULD be used".
So you'd put those three points in the introduction, after contextualising and providing your contention in the form of "Rose... xyz" (similar to what you have already done).... After those three points you would include a 'thesis statement' which is literally one sentence that states your contention (or thesis) in certain terms. Something like "Hence, Rose asserts that power can corrupt, and utilises Twelve Angry Men as a demonstration of how power can be misused"... or something like that, y'know? Google thesis statement and read all about it.
Through their role as members of the jury, certain characters choose to exploit what has been given to them for personal reasons, rather than fulfill their civic duty. Yeah okay, not bad. You could defs write T.sentences like this if you wanted to. The way I usually wrote mine (just as an alternative for you, if you please) was I'd split it into two parts, and it would usually be rather lengthy (This was the only piece of advice I didn't take from the AN study guide). I'd have a two part topic sentence, one part addressing the prompt, and one part addressing Rose and some verb pertaining to him. Didn't matter which came first. I found it really shaped my paragraphs and kept me strictly on topic and read well, with my writing anyway. For example. "Rose condemns the adversary system of trial as implemented in 1950s American society, demonstrating the ways in which it promotes misuse of power and hinders justice." .. Not entirely perfect, but imo, a pretty good sentence. Now we can easily discuss power in relation to justice and all sorts of values etc throughout the paragraph. Whilst this not only undermines the American judicial system, it also represents our society as a whole;[/b] that is, within our civilisation various individuals abuse the power that has been given to them because of political agenda, prejudice or self-interest; in the same vein that it can be seen that Jurors 3, 7 and 10 placed their personal bias, selfishness and bigotry, respectively, ahead of their responsibility. Semi-colons are going to be a trend, huh? I'd improve the sentence by saying "respective personal bias...." etc, to avoid that sort of disjointed flow created by the commas. Through the stereotypes that the three aforementioned jury members represent, we are able to see Rose reflect on those who "don’t give a damn about the law", or rather, those that "don't give a damn" about their duty to society. This is still relevant to Australia's contemporary culture, in which politicians, celebrities, etc. place self-interest above all else and, just as the personal reasons of the assorted members of the jury held back and slowed down the jury from achieving progress and a correct decision, the self-interest that exists within politics and celebrity also hold us back as a society.NNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRR. Your job is to analyse the wonderful play, not draw parallels between the play and Australian society. Unless you wanted to say "Rose makes the play timeless and relevant to any society through the lack of names" or something something. But you never need to do this. Furthermore, your paragraph is shallow on analysis (this is to be expected, don't stress, just work at it).
Words you might be interested in: embodiment. personification. And all of the different forms therein. Eg; 10th juror embodies xenophobia, 7th is a personification of self-interest, 8th is the embodiment of the values that Rose holds highest; objectivity, compassion etc etc etc. This could be extremely dense. I would be analysing the 3rd juror's desire to vicariously punish his son through the defendant, quoting "we had a battle", "I'm one of [his executioners]" etc and using many author verbs to demonstrate that Rose is utilising this character to convey power misuse etc. Analyse more. Analyse the quotes you provide as well. At the moment your quotes aren't terrible but they are just there because you know they should be there. Like, is him saying he is one of his executioners not some fucking morbid shit?
Not using the power you have been given effectively in an appropriate way is also an incredible misuse of the authority that you have been delivered. Stop using 'you'. It's too conversational. A master essay writer will write in a way that articulates exactly what is in his mind and leave the reader with no questions as to what he means. In contrast to conversation, where people can ask questions and jump from topic to topic left right and centre.Although this form of misuse is quite miniscule in comparison to the prevalent use of selfishness that exists, it is arguably equally dangerousDon't tell me what it arguably is; argue it. Don't say things 'although...' that could detract from your own contention.. This can be exemplified no better No! Don't use negatives like this in your writing. The reader never wants to know what isn't, they always want to know what is. Subconsciously so. "The man is not tall or blonde. He doesn't wear a green jacket to work." or "He is a stout man with brown hair. He wears a grey suit jacket trimmed with black to work every morning." - what sentence do you like more? Say "best exemplified" (your break of this rule was pretty minor, though) than by the defendant's lawyer; whom Juror 8 notes, "wasn't doing his job". The defense counsel, by letting "too many little things go", put the defendant in an incredibly precarious position. Not properly using what has been given to him is incredible misuse because power is opportunityseems a bit weak. (omfg lol I just wrote seams. my mind is jelly) and, despite the boy being found innocent, that's exactly what he gave up when he didn't "tear the prosecution witness to shreds" or challenge the prosecutions narrative; you use of evidence is better in this paragraph, it builds your argument.a greater opportunity to let a young man walk free. This enhances one of the great things about the judicial system. That is, as part of the civil duty that accompanies the judicial system, members of the public are forced to make a decision and make full use of the chance that you have, an underlying strength that exists in the democratic system.What do you mean? How does it enhance a great thing about the judicial system? It shows a flaw in the judicial system, that someone can argue without conviction because of their own beliefs. That sentence is contrary to your argument of this paragraph, really. You're talking about a shitty lawyer and power abuse, you don't want to bring up how everything is okay because people are forced to make a decision. They also aren't force to make full use of their chances, so a bit weak here. Does your teacher use the phrases 'civil/civic duty' a lot in regards to the play?
During the play we areavoid it. There are better ways to say these things and whilst 'we' is probably acceptable in reference to humanity, just don't do it. able to observe the various levels of control or “power” that some characters have over others in regular interactions and how such power could be, and is at times, misused.hm, not a bad idea. Am interested to see what you say here. I'm guessing Juror 2 is mentioend. Throughout the play, Juror 3 and Juror 8 each attempt to control the jury room, although they do so in very different ways. Juror 3 is somewhat is the somewhat really necessary? be definite.of an aggressive, dominating man, imposing his views on people from the beginning, telling the far more timid, simple Juror 2 that “We’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble.” On the other hand, Juror 8 could be seen as manipulative, excellent at the “soft sell”, able to prod and push others to come to their own conclusions that suit his agenda. Both of these jurors use their ability to influence others in an attempt to sway their fellow jury members to their cause. However, it is Juror 3 who represents those that choose to take advantage of their influence on others for personal reasons, being what Juror 8 calls a “public avenger”, and Juror 8 who represents those that use their influence as a beacon of leadership, fighting for the right cause. Fantastic interpretation. Would like more depth of analysis (I know you were aiming for 600-800 but ditch that please.) You could also improve your sense of language although it's pretty good. Read essays by EvangelionZeta on the worked examples threads to see how it should be done.. (For anyone watching... I haven't actually read Stonecold's etc etc... I just recommend EZ's because they're the only ones I ever read due to interest, so they're the only ones I know for a fact have great expression/flow)
Power itself is a powerful thing. What are you trying to say? Apples are also tasty. Within the setting of a court case, Rose is able to explore the various powers that exist in the world and the different dangers that surround them. Through Rose, we i really just don't like we. are able to examine the risks that surround power, both in the democratic system and in society. We are able to view how it can be both used and completely misused. Not bad. I'd provide a neat sum of my three main points and end on something that could give shivers like "Ultimately, Rose defines many ways power can taint people, and encourages a more compassionate humanity."
Okay so it couldn't give much shivers but it's a nice cap-off line.
780 words.
[/quote]
I'd like to see how you would handle a longer essay. It would also mean I could give you more feedback. Some good ideas! I would like to see you re-attempt this prompt at the end of the year when you are practicing. I don't think it's well suited to a beginner. Keep posting essays and I will make you amazing.
-
I... just... woah.
You completely destroyed that. Never had that much feedback on anything I've written in my life. Thank you very, very much.
"I will be back, with a vengeance."
-
I... just... woah.
You completely destroyed that. Never had that much feedback on anything I've written in my life. Thank you very, very much.
"I will be back, with a vengeance."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Omfg am actually shaking with laughter right now lol.
You're totally welcome, man! Keep posting, and I will keep destroying. I am Le Essay Destroyer.
I'm always true to my word ;)
Edit: I look forward to having discussions with you when your knowledge of the play develops along with your ideas. It's very worth looking into the history of the time. For a week or so in 2010 my History teacher covered American culture post WW2, things like materialism et al but I still googled it. Learn about McCarthy and stuff. Just Google fucking everything. I googled the fucking Dempsey-Firpo fight lol.
-
Edit: I look forward to having discussions with you when your knowledge of the play develops along with your ideas. It's very worth looking into the history of the time.
In fact, it's critical. If you're writing an essay on Twelve Angry Men, you must discuss the social and historical context of 1950s America vis a vis McCarthyism and HUAC.
If you're super-keen (and you should be, this is the second still second-best text ever offered for VCE English), ask your teacher if they could put together a mini-lecture on 1950s American politics and society.
Made this post better - Brenden
No you didn't; Sometimes Gladness was better :P - Alon
-
>doesn't know what HUAC is.
-
HUAC was the 'House Un-American Activities Commission' - they ran the McCarthyist show trials as well as general anti-Communist fear-mongering amongst the American population at the time.
Edit: So many hyphens, I ain't even mad, yo.
-
Oh okay fair enough - I guess I hit that mark by talking about McCarthy/communism/propaganda in a general sense. How would you work HUAC into an essay?
-
Well, I always referred to it in the intro/as a topic sentence/beginning of conclusion along with McCarthyism, generally along the lines of
Rose utilises Twelve Angry Men to criticise the McCarthyistic jury system of the 1950s, where anti-Communist fear-mongering by the House Un-American Activities Commission (HUAC) subjected the American population to the threat of imprisonment at unwinnable show trials.***
***Bear with me, it's ~1am and I'm not feeling particularly creative
-
Oh okay, so it never formed the basis of very content-dense discussion?
I must research.
-
Nah, there really wasn't too much to say about HUAC unless you were going to make the argument that Rose, in 12AM, is providing a criticism of political Conservativism as a whole through the words and actions of certain Jurors (3rd, 4th, 10th) - but then you'd need to discuss how the play was didactic in that Rose was promoting a Liberalist message through the 8th Juror etc. etc.
-
Sounds cool! Did you write on 12AM? If so, which prompt?
-
I did! The only other option was OTW, and nope.
IIRC, the topic was the very same one OP just wrote on.
-
You remember correctly indeed! Do you remember your points?
(also lol OTW)
-
haha I wish; the first thing I did after the English exam was hug my teacher, apologise for not doing any work throughout the year, and promptly wiped my brain.
Also, VCAA still hasn't sent me my Statement of Marks yet :/
-
When did you order them?? I got mine last week sometime, perhaps the week before.
-
Posted it on the 11th, payment was processed on the 13th, so they definitely have it *shakes fist at VCAA*
-
Posted it on the 11th, payment was processed on the 13th, so they definitely have it *shakes fist at VCAA*
Ah, no stress then, it should arrive at some point! Check with your local post-office?
-
I might give it till Uni starts, then I'll do the whole indignant "where's my mail" shtick at the post office haha
-
statement of marks took AGES for me, but maybe cause I send it to a different adress, on purpose though.
But it was worth it :D
I only skimmed through the essay, cause brenden who, in comparison to me, studied the book already marked it. I planned to read 12AM since ages, but I still haven't bought it :(. My reluctant fundamentalist came today though :)
Anyways, my brief comments:
Intro:
-I like the flow of you writing
-too brief
-1 sentence per point that you gonna discuss
-Not sure if it works for a 12AM essay, but if it does, add a thesis statement to the end to round up the introduction.
Examples for a Thesis statement for Interpreter of Maladies:
1. Thus, it is through these means of communication that Lahiri evokes the significance of strong relationships and positive minds in one's quest to overcome the trials and tribulations that life may entail.
2. Hence, it is through these evocative short stories that we are offered a glimpse of the importance of effective communication and integration into society.
BP 1:
-find a stronger topic-sentence
-expand upon your ideas
-good to see that you are not retelling the plot as most people do, but you are going a bit too far away. Be more narrow in the middle. The overall structure of the BPs should me broad-narrow-broad. So a broad Topic-sentence, narrow in the middle and a broad link sentence.
-refer to the author much, much more
-add a good link sentence
BP 2:
-find more examples for one thematic point
-refer to the author. Example from Interpreter:
This is exemplified by Lahiri’s equiption of the credulous and susceptible protagonist with short and abrupt sentences such as “everyone, this people, too much in their world”, which serves to highlight Mrs. Sen’s incompetence of the English Language, which makes her immigrant experience even more noticeable.
-as seen in the example, add character-descriptive words to your essay
-please don't write your essays in the Second-person narrative
-otherwise same comments as for the first BP
BP 3:
-also don't use 'we'. Save your inclusive language for context-essays, it works well there
-" somewhat of an aggressive" please don't write like that
-you are retelling the plot now
Conclusion:
-too short
-the brief content of it is good though
Not the best essay tbh, a 5 max. But don't give up, my written (and spoken english) was way worse at start of Yr12, since I was a complete fob. Try to write in a more academic manner and also use better vocab. This is one of the first essays for which I didn't need to look up any of the words used.
Try to write longer essay and try to rewrite this one. For the length aim for maybe 150-250-250-250-100 so 1k in total. In the exam you will be faster trust me and longer, I wrote the longest and best TR essay of my life in the actual EOY exam :D.
Get some good notes for 12AM, my tutor got some really great tertiary education notes for my anthology. I used many of the ideas that I found in those notes, which also not many other students in Australia, especially ESL-students, had, hence they are in the eye of the examiner unique ideas.
"Keep Posting" - Florian L. Kreyßig
-
Yeah okay, not bad. You could defs write T.sentences like this if you wanted to. The way I usually wrote mine (just as an alternative for you, if you please) was I'd split it into two parts, and it would usually be rather lengthy (This was the only piece of advice I didn't take from the AN study guide). I'd have a two part topic sentence, one part addressing the prompt, and one part addressing Rose and some verb pertaining to him. Didn't matter which came first. I found it really shaped my paragraphs and kept me strictly on topic and read well, with my writing anyway. For example. "Rose condemns the adversary system of trial as implemented in 1950s American society, demonstrating the ways in which it promotes misuse of power and hinders justice." .. Not entirely perfect, but imo, a pretty good sentence. Now we can easily discuss power in relation to justice and all sorts of values etc throughout the paragraph.
Just on this point specifically, today in English we were told to write down some topic sentences of the other prompt we were offered, but chose not to do. The prompt was something like "Twelve Angry Men shows the importance of seeing things from different perspectives.' Discuss." I tried to think about your suggestions, borrowing some of your ideas and came up with these. Do you think these are better?
- "Rose illustrates the danger of the 1950's American judicial system, accentuating the ways in which personal bias and perspective can hinder justice."
- "Following world war 2, in a time period of communist paranoia, Rose highlights the prejudicial perspectives that existed in post-war American society and the risks that surround such prejudice."
- "Rose amplifies the need to consider the perspectives of others, something which was not always done in the pre-civil rights era."
-
Thre are small improvements to be made but those sentences are much better imo
-
Thre are small improvements to be made but those sentences are much better imo
Thanks Brenden. :) But I showed them to my English teacher and she wasn't really all that much of a fan of them. She didn't really like the idea of bringing in the different contexts. At this stage, I suppose I'm writing for her because of SACS. However, I think I might write in that other structure around the exam.
Oh and, will probably have another essay up soon-ish aha.
-
Well, the improvements I would have made were taking the history out of the TSs. Context goes as te first line of your intro and then throughout your essay however it doesn't NEED to be explicitly referenced in your TS. I think perhaps my example (from memory) may have given you that impression. (Apologies).
-
But yeah - do everything your teacher says to a T.
-
lol, for my last Context SAC, which was my only written A+ for SACs. I did like the opposite of what my teacher told me and got the best mark of all my SACs :p
But yeah do to a degree what your teacher says. What the teacher wants might be something slightly different.
-
Fuck yeah, worked my ass off the past month in English and pulled a 30/30 on the first SAC. :D
EDIT: massive thank you to Brenden and FlorianK for your help!
-
Well done mate!
-
Fuck yeah, worked my ass off the past month in English and pulled a 30/30 on the first SAC. :D
EDIT: massive thank you to Brenden and FlorianK for your help!
YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH MOTHERFUCKER WOOOOOOOOOOOO