Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 11:55:42 am

Author Topic: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.  (Read 66990 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

denimaenema

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #60 on: October 23, 2017, 06:58:49 pm »
0
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. 

lilyrosee

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Respect: +25
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #61 on: October 23, 2017, 08:28:33 pm »
+4
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)
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 08:32:55 pm by lilyrosee »
2016: Psychology
2017: English [47] | Literature | Drama [42] | Media | Australian History [43]
2018 - 2020: Bachelor of Arts @ the University of Melbourne

VCE English Essay Marking $10 per essay or 3 essays for $20 - DM for details

chantelle.salisbury

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Respect: +2
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #62 on: October 24, 2017, 05:54:22 pm »
0
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.

lilyrosee

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Respect: +25
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #63 on: October 24, 2017, 07:11:31 pm »
+2
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 :)
« Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 07:15:22 pm by lilyrosee »
2016: Psychology
2017: English [47] | Literature | Drama [42] | Media | Australian History [43]
2018 - 2020: Bachelor of Arts @ the University of Melbourne

VCE English Essay Marking $10 per essay or 3 essays for $20 - DM for details

chantelle.salisbury

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Respect: +2
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #64 on: October 24, 2017, 08:02:50 pm »
+1
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.
:)

Charlie Locke

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: 0
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #65 on: November 04, 2017, 07:41:02 pm »
0
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.

clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #66 on: November 04, 2017, 08:11:58 pm »
+1
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.
BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

Essay Marking Services in 2021 for VCE English + Essays for Sale

Charlie Locke

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: 0
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #67 on: November 05, 2017, 08:53:40 pm »
+1
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.


clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #68 on: November 05, 2017, 09:26:00 pm »
+1
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  :)
BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

Essay Marking Services in 2021 for VCE English + Essays for Sale

Charlie Locke

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: 0
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #69 on: November 07, 2017, 09:28:14 am »
0
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.


Na__oia

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Respect: 0
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #70 on: November 08, 2017, 11:40:35 pm »
0
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.
2016: English
2017: English Language, Literature, Japanese (SL) , Further

clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #71 on: November 09, 2017, 05:08:51 pm »
0
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.
BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

Essay Marking Services in 2021 for VCE English + Essays for Sale

casssyy

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #72 on: November 10, 2017, 11:05:02 am »
0
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.



EdgyPotato

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #73 on: November 12, 2017, 04:01:08 pm »
0
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.

Hala119

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Respect: +1
Re: Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
« Reply #74 on: February 20, 2018, 10:28:15 pm »
0
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.