Compilation of Text Response Feedback

[Damoz.G]

^^^^

Well done. I don't feel like I'm a person to give it a mark because I could be wrong, but a bit of my feedback:
* You've talked about Dickens' messages in the novella, but I think there needs to be more focus the bit about educating. I can see it in your piece at times, but I think you can make it a bit stronger. Talk about its relevance today, and how is it relevant. Dickens wrote this a while ago, so how can his readers today be able to relate to it? I think a few more STRONG topic sentences of these on your paragraphs will strengthen your piece.
* Could improve the wording and phrasing of "Dickens insinuates that if we change the path we are on and seek to help others, we may be able to better someone’s life or in fact, save them." You could emphasise and explain more of Dickens' message here, and state that Scrooge learnt that it was his responsibility to help, as a result of benefitting from industrialisation.
* Also, you gotta underline the title of the book, instead of using inverted commas. Also, you don't need to restate the book name and Dickens' name in your conclusion. Instead you could write something like: "In essence, Dickens' novella is not"....then continue on.
* Elaborate on your point about Ignorance and Want.

Oh, and by the way, no one is in the upper class in ACC - Scrooge is in the middle class.

No doubt that you have pretty much explained Dickens' messages, but you just gotta elaborate more of it in relation to the educating part.

Other than that, great job!

[DoctorWho]

^^^^

Well done. I don't feel like I'm a person to give it a mark because I could be wrong, but a bit of my feedback:
* You've talked about Dickens' messages in the novella, but I think there needs to be more focus the bit about educating. I can see it in your piece at times, but I think you can make it a bit stronger. Talk about its relevance today, and how is it relevant. Dickens wrote this a while ago, so how can his readers today be able to relate to it? I think a few more STRONG topic sentences of these on your paragraphs will strengthen your piece.
* Could improve the wording and phrasing of "Dickens insinuates that if we change the path we are on and seek to help others, we may be able to better someone’s life or in fact, save them." You could emphasise and explain more of Dickens' message here, and state that Scrooge learnt that it was his responsibility to help, as a result of benefitting from industrialisation.
* Also, you gotta underline the title of the book, instead of using inverted commas. Also, you don't need to restate the book name and Dickens' name in your conclusion. Instead you could write something like: "In essence, Dickens' novella is not"....then continue on.
* Elaborate on your point about Ignorance and Want.

Oh, and by the way, no one is in the upper class in ACC - Scrooge is in the middle class.

No doubt that you have pretty much explained Dickens' messages, but you just gotta elaborate more of it in relation to the educating part.

Other than that, great job!

Thanks for the tips! So would it be better to just refer to them as the wealthier class? Also, should I underline the title of the book when I'm writing my essay in the exam?

[Damoz.G]

Thanks for the tips! So would it be better to just refer to them as the wealthier class? Also, should I underline the title of the book when I'm writing my essay in the exam?

Well, if you really wanted to, you can refer to them as the wealthier class. But I don't state it in my essays, because your examiner is most likely going to already know that Scrooge is in the middle class. Personally, I wouldn't do it, but if you really want to, then you can refer to them as the wealthy class.

Yes, you have to underline A Christmas Carol whenever you state the name. You have to do the same thing with Language Analysis when stating the company/publisher of the Newspaper, or Blog name, etc.

[brenden]

War Poems Feedback appreciated.

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

 ‘Has your soul sipped’ and ‘Strange Meeting’ provide an antithetical interpretation for morality in war. Whereas ‘Strange Meeting’ boasts the deep felt empathy between the soldiers even in the derision of ‘Hell’, ‘Has your soul sipped’ tells of the carnal pleasures of murder and death.  The inclusion of ‘soul’ in the title has immediate connotations of death – the poem seems to be the description of an event that goes beyond flesh and blood and is almost other worldly. Owen’s use of sibilance in the title (‘soul sipped’) sets an appropriately sinister tone for the poem and foreshadows the shocking revelation at the end. The use of pararhyme (‘sweet’/’sweat’,’ meaning’/’mourning’) and anaphora (repetition of ‘sweeter’) speeds up the flow of the verse, reflecting the increasing excitement of the speaker as he describes his pleasure being even “sweeter than the nightingales” – the voices of the soldiers who sing of hope and glory . The story culminates in the murder of soldier, a boy, dead and no longer considered a ‘threat’. In this macabre scene as the boy’s ‘life tide’ slowly seeps into the ground is the violence of war seen as appalling rather than pleasing. After being exposed to such a horrendous tale does the reader finally begin to comprehend the attrition of warsubjective? instead, bring it back to the prompt ''Ultimately, Owen highlights.... Empathy is felt for these “doomed youth” who “die as cattle” and their deaths are considered all the more heinous and sacrilegious due to this twisted fate.  Can't fault this without having read the text. I'd normally say to be wary of dashes but they feel okay here.

This role of fate and God’s overruling power is a strong motif in Owen’s verse. He reveals his antipathy towards an almighty being who refused to “assuage the tears” or “fill these void veins full again with youth” of the lives He had knowingly shortened. Owen draws parallels between the biblical tale of Abraham and the genocide of Europe in ‘Parable of the old man and the young’ to highlight God’s blasphemous nonchalance. Metaphorically representing God as the ‘Old man’ Owen describes how God refused to accept the “Angel” who “called …out of heaven” which would have meant an end to the war. Rather, the decision to reject the offer had an impact that would be felt for generations, and as such, Owen consummates his poem in a couplet that hyperbolises this impact. This rejection had such a quick and unavoidable effect, (and hence the faster pace of the couplet)not a fan of brackets at all. that the youth of Europe were left to perish “one by one”. Owen’s stringent use poetic convention serves to highlight his abhorrence of those who propagated war. not sure if it's just because i'm unfamiliar with the text or the poetry talk, but -- analysis in relation to the prompt? Are we talking about God's moral disorder? spell it out.

Owen’s poetry reveals that real enemies of the young men were not soldiers or Germans who were “scarcely thought of,” but in fact the army officials of their own country who were only too willing to help them “throw away their knees.” This was the most immoral act of all. Army officials, generals and leaders, people who were idolised for their “smart salutes” and “jewelled hilts”, role models for the naïve and innocent younger generations,this extensive description of hte soldiers is very distracting in this sentence. were the ones only too willing to “smiling[ly], [write] the lie [of age]”. These were men who Owen described as having “famines of thought and feeling,” people who if they had been subject to the “smothering dreams” that they had forced upon the soldiers, would never have told “the Old lie” with such “high zest”. Owen denounces these men and aims to eternalise the story of the soldiers in verse so that the same mistakes never happen againyou might be doing it really subtly but I think the prompt connection is too implicit. Seems that way without having read it or read any other essays on WP, anyway..

War was far removed from the glorious “pleasure” that the soldier’s thought it was. Young, strong men were transformed into “old beggars” and “hags” due to the physical disorder of war. Rather, war was an ecstatic and adrenaline fuelled pit of terror that had no end, exemplified in the long, running sentences of “Dulce et decorum est”. The sudden change of meter of the poem reveals the grudging acceptance of the soldiers for the fate they were sealed to, of “blood-shod” feet and “drowning as if under a green sea”.  This is interesting - you could even devote a paragraph to meter and say how the structure of hissentenes or poetic devise or whatever emphasise the moral condemnation, and that would be pretty direct on the prompt. This paragraph seems a bit short, but I guess it works okay considering the structure of your piece and just making the quick meter point. nb, nb

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

You're a skilled writer. Honestly, I think someone more familiar with War Poems would be able to give you much better feedback. You're a good enough writer than I can't suggest big improvements simply without reading the text. It seems like a really great essay though, but I'm not sure how strongly it connects to the prompt. It seems to gloss over it slightly.

[shooterblitz]

Oh, and by the way, no one is in the upper class in ACC - Scrooge is in the middle class.

Doesn't that come down to the interpretation? Because at our school, we looked at the text with a Marxist perspective, whereby Scrooge belongs to the bourgeoisie part of Victorian London, and characters like Bob Cratchit + family are considered a part of the proletariat class.

[DoctorWho]

Doesn't that come down to the interpretation? Because at our school, we looked at the text with a Marxist perspective, whereby Scrooge belongs to the bourgeoisie part of Victorian London, and characters like Bob Cratchit + family are considered a part of the proletariat class.

Bourgeoisie refers to the upper, middle class and the proletariat is the working class... So I guess that would be accurate.

[DoctorWho]

A Christmas Carol in more a social commentary than it is a moral tale. Discuss.

Charles Dickens', A Christmas Carol, presents an exploration of differing ideas and values through an enthralling tale of morality. In A Christmas Carol, Dickens demonstrates the idea that a life of ignorance towards morals will lead to an inevitable doom in the afterlife. In addition to this, Dickens also shows that that a lack of ethics can lead to an inner suffering that plagues one’s life. Furthermore, Dickens suggests that morality is the helping hand that society so desperately needs. Conversely, Dickens makes a social commentary on society by pointing out the hardship of the poorer classes which paints the wealthier classes in an extremely poor light.

Dickens insinuates that an existence which involves ignorance to morals eventually leads to anguish in the afterlife. Dickens demonstrates this idea through the character of Jacob Marley who comes to warn Scrooge of his eternal suffering, should he continue to be ignorant towards human morality. The character of Jacob Marley serves as a harbinger for the punishment awaiting those who live selfishly like Scrooge does. The ghost of Jacob Marley tells Scrooge of the chain he ‘forged in life’ that is now forced to wear. Dickens symbolizes Marley’s chain as a remnant of our past wrongdoings, thereby warning his readers of the doom they will suffer if they do not choose to live by principles such as generosity, compassion and sympathy for others. Moreover, this reinforces the moral points that Dickens wishes to get across.

In addition to this, a lack of morals can lead to an inner suffering which leaves the individual isolated and alone. Dickens emphasises this through the character of Ebenezer Scrooge who is seen to be an ‘odious’ and ‘stingy’ old man. Scrooge’s life is shown to be one of innate suffering and loneliness. Dickens uses the life of Scrooge to reinforce the idea of the woe that those who lack morals face. Although Scrooge is depicted as a greedy man who does not care for that company of others, he serves as an example of all that we wish to avoid in this world. By emphasising Scrooge’s anguish, Dickens provides his readers with a lesson of morality, by showing them the miserable life that one will face if they lack values.

Furthermore, Dickens suggests that morality is the saviour of mankind and can help ease the despair of others. Dickens reinforces this idea through the character of Tiny Tin who is foretold that he will ‘surely die’ if another person does not intervene to ease his suffering. The character of Tiny Tim is a clever ploy by Dickens to strike sympathy and guilt in the hearts of his readers and to demonstrate to them that their selfish ways do impact others. Moreover, Dickens emphasises this idea by showing the impact of Scrooge’s moral transformation and the effect this has on Tiny Tim’s life. He does not die, and lives a happier and more comfortable life. Hence, Dickens uses his tale of morality to encourage readers to think about their morals and the effect they have on others.

Conversely, Dickens does make a social comment on society by depicting the corruption and exploitation present in Victorian society. Dickens demonstrates the attitudes of the wealthier class through the selfishness of Scrooge. When Scrooge refers to the poorer classes as the ‘surplus population’ Dickens uses this sentence to embody the attitude that many of the wealthier classes hold against the poor. Thereby, he makes an elusive critique of societal values and ideas. This is further shown as he contrasts the lives of Bob Cratchit and Scrooge. Clearly they are both of different social standings and therefore live very different lives. However, Bob is shown is shown to be happier and loving than Scrooge, regardless of the fact that he is significantly poorer. This suggests that Dickens wished to demonstrate to readers that the wealthier classes were not as well off as one would think. Therefore, Dickens does make evasive critiques of society within his novella but continues to centralize the story around the morality of individuals.

In essence, A Christmas Carol is more a tale of morality rather than a social commentary. The ideas that Dickens presents in the novella are intended to enlighten and educate the reader of the importance of morals and values in one’s life. Dickens highlights many ideas that are centred on morality such as the detrimental effect of ignorance towards morals. Likewise, this is reinforced by the idea that a lack of morals leads to an individual’s inner suffering. Furthermore, Dickens suggests that our morals have a significant impact on the lives of others.  Conversely, Dickens also makes allusive comments on societal issues but A Christmas Carol is mainly a tale of morals.

[sin0001]

@John__Doe: I haven't read A Christmas Carol but your introduction feels too formulaic, it's like you've taken 4 dot points and just stuck them in a paragraph by just placing conjunction words like 'Furthermore, In addition & Conversely; you'll be better off improving the flow. Also, same deal with the start of your body paragraphs. Try linking to your previous ideas better, when you begin another body para., don't let words like 'conversely' & 'furthermore' do the talking for you!
Hope that helps.

[ahat]

Ransom essay - feedback appreciated
“The characters’ identity is not defined by their names, but who they are.”

Malouf demonstrates how Priam, relinquishing himself of the asphyxiating epithet of king, was able to humble himself before an “implacable enemy” and be the agent of change. Surpassing his title and realising the beauty of life by inadvertently sharing in the experiences of Somax, the common carter, was Achilles also exonerated of his grief and his role as the “hero”. Malouf narrates the stories of these characters to exemplify the power of words and human nature in causing such an elementary change.

Priam, freeing himself of any “kingly trappings”, liberated himself from the confines of his sobriquet and ponders a life “aloof from the feelings of the common man”. It was Priam’s journey with Somax that highlighted that true courage lay away from the battlefield, in small acts of kindness and selflessness. Being finally made aware of a world that was constantly “pattering” by sharing in the experiences of a Somax, a “poor day labourer” whose position in society was antithetical to his own, did Priam realise the “intimacy” between men that he’d never had the chance to share in. Sharing in the experiences of Somax, Priam discovered the depth of the human connection, that despite the social spectrum, every man had an intertwined fate in a “story…that had not found its end”. It was this realisation that allowed him to break away from the “obligation of always being the hero” and led to his catharsis, allowing him to beseech Achilles for his son’s body as a “father” and “man”; not a king. Priam realised that like Achilles, both were fathers who shared in the subtle love and tumultuous grief of every man, intrinsic emotions of human nature that defined one’s characters but they had never considered. These decidedly masculine men recognised the shared humanity of Greek and Trojan and consequently, broke free of their titles and transcended the impositions set upon them by the war and their roles.

“It is the office and name that matters, not the person.” Certainly Somax feels that his name is important and he does not welcome the change. He fears that it may be presumptuous to put aside a name he has adorned so long and which “fits him” as the name Idaeus does not. Of course, by making Idaeus the name of an office, the king’s royal herald, rather than that of an individual, Malouf is able to introduce new characters into the narrative, but this is not without complications within the story. (would it be better if I started this paragraph here?) Somax, as the reader inevitably thinks of him, is “very much divided” about the new name and as time passes, will find that his word is doubted because his listeners know that “what he has to tell did happen” but the man in the story was “King Priam’s herald.” Hence, Malouf demonstrates the dual nature of words and titles. Paradoxically, it is precisely because Somax is not Priam’s customary herald that he can assist Priam’s education on the world of ordinary men. It is as Somax, not Idaeus, that the carter makes his impact on the king. Whilst the name of an office can have profound impacts on a person’s status and image, there is nothing to suggest that one’s experiences are left to lament as a cause. Somax, relishing the thought of “what a tale he’ll have to tell”, finds that no one is prepared to believe him, and is dismissed as a “known liar” and a “man who is a hundred years old and drinks too much”. His flair for telling a story counts against him, and his peers will, ironically, refuse the significance of his original name by refusing to credit any connection between him and the name Idaeus. By reinstating his identify as Somax, they will deny the reality of perhaps the most telling events of his life, despite the reader knowing the truth. Thus, Priam will win fame in death while Somax lingers on to watch the script of his life being rewritten by others.

 Malouf’s deliberate retention of Achilles name in the introduction of his novella allows the audience to have a first impression of the character without judging him based on their knowledge of the Iliad. The first few pages show Achilles' more sensitive, feminine side and it is a shock when his name is finally revealed that a character known to be so strong, is subject to such emotional thoughts, even tentatively susceptible to the human comfort of being “tenderly enfolded” in a mother’s grasp. This astonishing revelation demonstrates the power of names and words. The expectations of an immortal man, on par with gods, subject to intrinsic human emotions highlights that experience and humanity are not contained within a name. Whilst Achilles is expected be a fearless warrior, it is as if he lacks a true identity beyond this role. When, for example, he desecrates Hector’s corpse, he does so that he may believe “there was a living man at the centre of it, and that man himself”. But as the story progresses, Achilles relishes the opportunity “to take on the lighter bond of being simply a man” and discover his true identity. When presented with a golden opportunity to capture or kill the king of Troy, Achilles puts to one side his “hard manly qualities” and acts instead with compassion and kindness. Achilles and his Myrmidons act on instinct and are “unacquainted with second thoughts”, so when Priam enters Achilles’ tent his attendants expect their leader to “take the interloper by the throat”. Yet, Achilles sees the chance for change and discovers that it does not matter who he is underneath, but what he does that defines him.

Ransom depicts the rough world of men where a man’s act him in the form of a story. Despite the cataclysm of war and role conflict, many of the characters are able to reconcile with their true identities. Malouf writes these events so that the audience may reflect upon the layers of distortion which may overlay the core of reality at the heart of a story. Expectation of roles and name often overshadow the true character that lies underneath.

[ahat]

You're a skilled writer. Honestly, I think someone more familiar with War Poems would be able to give you much better feedback. You're a good enough writer than I can't suggest big improvements simply without reading the text. It seems like a really great essay though, but I'm not sure how strongly it connects to the prompt. It seems to gloss over it slightly.

Thanks for the feedback man - I didn't even realise someone had marked it. I've moved onto Ransom though, because like you said, with Owen, I can never seem to be able to truly relay my essay back to the prompt (but hopefully I get better with Ransom). Really though, it's because I read Sugarminted's essay a while back and just gave up, because it was damn good:P

[memarani]

Year of Wonders essay. Any feedback is appreciated.

More than anything else, it is Anna’s courage and determination that results in her eventual emancipation. Do you agree?

In Year of Wonders, Geraldine Brooks explores the patriarchal beliefs, religious dogma and social structure exclusive to 17th century Eyam. By straying away from the social, cultural and religious norms of the time, Anna, by gradually growing in courage throughout the plague year, is able to become independent, leading to her emancipation, that is, freedom from the laws and conventions of Eyam. However, her freedom is not solely the result of her own courage and determination. Without the assistance and encouragement of others, she would not have been able to realise her full potential and her own capabilities and self-worth.

Geraldine Brooks, by using the events of the plague year as a catalyst, is able to develop Anna’s character, transforming her from a timid and shy servant to a strong and independent woman. In the time of 1665, Anna is a ‘widow at eighteen’, having lost her husband Sam Frith to a mining accident. She follows the customs of Eyam by displaying deference to the upper classes, such as the Bradford family. When hosting a dinner party at the Bradford’s residence, she avoids Elinor’s attempt to converse with her lest it would cause ‘Colonel Bradford to expire from shock.’ Later, Anna does not display this deference to the Bradford’s; she is not afraid to call Elizabeth Bradford a ‘murdering bitch’. Anna further displays courage and determination by raising her two sons, Tom and Jamie, by herself, a task made more difficult by the death of her husband. Anys observes that Anna likes ‘to go and come without a man’s say-so’. Brooks illustrates Anna’s widowed status as something that has not caused solely grief, but has changed Anna in a way that does not fit the social conventions of that time, women being ‘shackled to their menfolk’. Her escape from a society that abides by restrictive laws is fully realised in her marriage to Ahmed Bey, being ‘in name if not in flesh’, having only been a marriage of convenience. Anna’s courage is displayed as she defies the social conventions belonging to her time and remains strong despite the hardships she has to face. However, courage cannot always come from within. Without assistance, Anna could not possess or maintain her courage.

It is the support of others which have helped Anna change and grow into a more courageous woman. Without the assistance of Elinor Mompellion, it is unlikely that Anna would have escaped Eyam. Elinor is a source of comfort and strength for Anna, having emotionally supported her throughout the plague year. It is Elinor’s support that allows Anna to conquer her fears and join Elinor in healing those who are afflicted by the plague. Anna’s fear of venturing into the Wickford mine stems from the fact that a mining incident claimed her husband’s life as well as the ‘fear of being in an airless place’. She is encouraged by Elinor to help Merry Wickford regain the claim to her family’s mine, being the only one left in her family. Having once failed to retrieve the ore from the Wickford mine, Anna is ashamed of her cowardice. She decides to use the dangerous method of ‘fire-setting’, which caused the death of her husband. Although Elinor had to convince Anna to assist her, Anna ensured that their efforts were successful. Geraldine Brooks is able to demonstrate, through Anna, how conquering one’s fear is an act of courage. It is not only her courage that leads to her eventual emancipation, but also her knowledge, as a result of her education, that is also a factor, as without these she would not realise her true potential and her purpose in life.

It is also intelligence and wisdom that lead to Anna’s freedom. Elinor’s assistance helps Anna further her knowledge and realise her courage. This results in her consequent movement away from the out-dated and ineffective medicinal practices used by the people of Eyam to combat the plague. Her newfound courage and determination enables her to escape to the more progressive city of Oran, dismissing the traditional and restrictive laws of Eyam. Being one of the few educated people in the village and naturally having noble qualities like bravery and wisdom that the others do not display, Anna does not fall victim to superstition as many of the villagers have done, resulting in the unjust murder of Anys Gowdie, and eventually, Mem Gowdie, who’s drowning by the villagers led her to catch Pneumonia. Both of these women did not conform to the conventions set in place in Eyam, displaying the courage and wisdom that Anna ‘admired’. As a result of the several deaths and tragedies caused by the plague, Anna, ‘after so many unanswered prayers … had lost the means to pray.’ Having lost her faith, she is able to notice that ‘the plague [is] a thing in nature’ and is not the working of God or the Devil. She instead practices medicine and uses herbs as cures for the sick. Her potential as a healer is realised when she travels to Oran. There, she meets the doctor Ahmed Bey who allows her to practice medicine in ways that ‘strengthen and nourish’. Although being his wife, she is not his ‘chattel’ as many women in Eyam are. As she has to be part of a harem in order to fulfil her dreams, she is restricted in a different way. Therefore, Brooks displays Anna’s emancipation as a product of her courage in challenging the conventions of the 17th century as well as the strength she is able to draw from Elinor Mompellion which helps her recognize her true potential.

Geraldine Brooks transforms Anna from a timid and shy girl to a courageous and intelligent woman. It is her strength as well as the help she incurs from Elinor which enables her to face the challenges of the plague year and realise her true potential and purpose in life. Without both of these, her eventual emancipation would have never come to fruition. However, while she is freer than the other villagers, she is still restricted. Nevertheless, even though Anna isn’t completely independent, her future is promising.

[lolipopper]

Hi can someone please give this essay a mark out of 10. Even if you haven't read the text, give a mark on structure?
Hamid's use of an extended monologue makes this story engaging but leaves the reader with many unanswered questions. To what extent is this true?

Suspense is a fundamental technique implemented by many thrillers to engage their target audience into the world of the narrative. However this often comes at its own cost, leaving behind many unanswered questions which leave the story unravelled and rather incomplete. Mohsin Hamid's post 9/11 literature The Reluctant Fundamentalist does exactly so and while it creatively uses the extended monologue to grasp the audience's attention, they are left to speculate possible outcomes for many situations such as the probable fate of Erica and that of Changez as he may have soon become the victim of an assassination. However this single edged narration is overly critical in conveying the international attitude towards America's corporate fundamentalism and,  although not implied, in revealing the untold story of the 9/11 aftermath on the racially accused, proving to be rather essential to the plot of the novel.

As the novel receives numerous ideal classifications such as "more exciting than any thriller" or "thoroughly gripping book", the importance of the extended monologue become significantly apparent to the audience. The consistent suggestions of an assassination as Changez judges a "soldier" appearance of the American or when the American suspects Changez giving a "signal" to the waiter, create concern for the security of the two, as the description of these situations are limited to only Changez's dialogue. With first person narration, an otherwise uncommon view of the American retaliation to the 9/11 attacks acts to entertain the reader as it sets to challenge the norms established by the modern media. However attractive and encapsulating these entertaining and suspenseful elements may be, they often tend to compromise the values of certain characters and situations portrayed in the novel.   

The question of who is predator and prey, is one that surfaces continuously from beginning to conclusion in course of the narrative. As the reader indulges into the first page of the novel, Changez warns a "mission" in the process that the silent American may be on. Although at first it seems as merely an observation, when we discover Changez's efforts in promoting an "anti-American" propaganda, the retaliation becomes almost an expectation as Changez issues a "firefly's glow that transcends boundaries" of many continents. However, as a "Kurtz waiting for his Marlow", Changez's perceived racial identity of an Islamic extremist shadows a doubt that he may himself be the assassin as the Silent American doubts his hospitality and his potential accomplice, the waiter. The series of events that entail this judgement, reappear consistently in the start and ending of each chapter, creating a dramatic concerning atmosphere.

Nevertheless, as the story concludes with an ambiguous "glint of metal" which Changez believes is a "card holder", a lack of response from the American listener refrains the audience from reaching a clear decision, forming the first unanswered question.
Similarly, as Changez recounts his American journey, at first the audience embraces it with loyal trust owing to his credentials of a "Princeton" graduate. However as the silent American gains a deeper understanding of Changez, Changez's final claims appear somewhat contradictory and false, leading the American to question the integrity of those claims. Changez's smile at the tragic collapse of the twin towers is one that angers the silent American with his "hands rolled into a fist". This sets the audience and their symbolic representation, the Silent American, "ill at ease" and against Changez. The collective effect of this bias becomes apparent when later the American accusingly questions  Changez's lack of involvement in the assassination of an American Assistance Coordinator and his encounter with Juan Bautista, a proposed catalyst for Changez's abandonment of America. By making Changez the sole narrator, Hamid creates an entertaining setting that dwells on audience attention. Yet it is one that leaves them to ruminate if Changez is really only, like the bride of 'One thousand and One nights', reciting a story so he is not assassinated. This forms another member of the many  abandoned questions.

Hamid depicts Erica as a character whose identity is shaped solely by a "guy with long skinny fingers" as she dwells into a phase of deep nostalgia. Seeing only Erica's beauty despite "something broken" being clearly visible, Changez catalyses a chronic illness which is untreatable and rather unavoidable as he offers a sad reality. However once the attacks of 9/11 take place, the basic foundation of Erica's personality shatters dramatically leading her to "reside within herself". Although it is finally revealed that Erica has disappeared, Hamid's need to create the suspense of Erica's possible reappearance results in a lack of confirmation of Erica's fate as Changez's recital is itself largely unsure and reasonable unreliable. Thus another unanswered question dominates the plot.

Conversely, although the use of an extended monologue does tend to be important for an engaging plot and may result in numerous questions unanswered, this technique is quite significantly important in conveying the key  ideas and themes of the novel. This dramatic narration by Changez allows the audience to view the aftermath of the 9/11 events from another perspective contrary to those which dominate the mainstream media in support of America. It depicts the events of racial profiling where Changez's "two week old beard" become an issue of safety concern at an airport and at Underwood Samson whose "colleagiality veneer only goes so deep". The monologue also assists in explaining the views of the international society upon an America that "retreated into assumptions of its own superiority". At a time of great tension between its ally Pakistan and India, America's refusal in interfere is adjacent to the corporate theme of Underwood Samson, where "Maximum return was the maxim to which we returned time and time again". It is only through Changez's biased narration, that another side of the historical tragedy comes to the common view of the audience.               

Despite being the enticing engaging thriller, Mohsin Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist,  doubtlessly as a sacrifice must revert to a plot with many unexplained scenes and unanswered questions. However the very structure of a dramatic monologue is the reason that the issues of racial profiling and America's selfish corporate nature are able to be addressed, factors which base the reason for Hamid's novel. 



 

[MonsieurHulot]

Hello all, I'd appreciate any advice/criticism/praise you have regarding this essay. Also, a mark out of 10 would be good, thank you.

"Twelve Angry Men is a play about how power can be misused."

Confined to a stifling jury room, Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men branches out, probing numerous facets of American life at the epoch. Only one man is innocent of misusing the power vested in him, everyone but Juror 8, even the Judge, contributes to the seemingly inexorable perversion of justice that is narrowly averted. Rose uses the jury room as a microcosm of America. The play is both a scathing critique of the misuse of power and a reflection on Rose's natal country, its past, present and future.

The Judge's misuse of power is perhaps the most influential yet subtle and easily over-looked. As a judge, it is his duty to consider the evidence presented and dismiss the impertinent or misleading. Most importantly, a judge must preserve the court's integrity by disallowing any perjury. Rose's judge, however, fails. After mere minutes of reflection, the jurors agree that both the old male witness and the middle-aged female witness, "the entire case for the prosecution", could not have seen what they swore to have seen, thus perjuring themselves. It is the job of the jurors to use the evidence presented, which they believe to have been presented in all good faith, to deliberate on the defendant's guilt. The Judge must ensure the evidence's veracity. By not disallowing the false testimony, the Judge misuses his power. Furthermore, by stating that "the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy", the Judge compounds his failings by making the consequences deadly. The Judge is not the only member of the judicial system to be incompetent. According to Juror 8, "the defence counsel wasn't doing his job", nor was the prosecution presenting a fair case. The fact that the old man could pick out the boy's voice, beneath whom he had lived for years, "was just an ambitious District Attorney putting on a show" and ultimately proves nothing about the defendant's guilt. Thus, the legal system failed everybody; the boy, by not giving him a fair trial and the jury, by sending them away to deliberate on misleading evidence and perjury. The power entrusted to the Judge is misused and the ramifications could have been murderous.

The jurors are not exempt from Rose's criticism, with the exception of Juror 8. Eleven of them are willing to send a sixteen year old boy to the electric chair without first debating the case. As every single one of them ultimately changed their vote to not guilty, this is a shocking misuse of power. Juror 7's flippant attitude shows how much he values his civic duty to justice;  for him, the verdict "better be fast. I've got tickets to a ball game." Juror 8 must tirelessly combat this attitude in his quest to express the reasonable doubt in his mind. Juror 8 is a beacon of hope, he alone uses his power responsibly, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, in line with the dearly-held American values of democracy and freedom for all. Though technically democratic, the other jurors' initial unthinking guilty vote resembles more mob rule than the kind of responsible consideration Juror 8 espouses. "It is not easy for one man to stand against the ridicule of others", yet Juror 8 does so. He expresses his unpopular opinion and rationally convinces the others that he is right;  that there is reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty Rose portrays Juror 8 as an ideal for which Americans must strive.

Setting the whole play in a small room, Rose draws in different people to present a diorama of American life in the 1950s. Juror 8 embodies the future that Rose wishes to see emerge from a quagmire of racist and ignorant attitudes, personified by Juror 10. Though it is ultimately a hopeful play, Rose cannot help but express his frustration at the lack of progress. The jurors struggle to advance, with Juror 12 oscillating between each side. Rose writes that "It's oppressively still", ostensible referring to the room's meteorology but conveniently describing the zeitgeist. His use of synecdoche in substituting the jury room for America condenses and renders comprehensible his views on a wide range of contemporaneous issues.

While Twelve Angry Men is a play about the need for careful deliberation and the safeguard of reasonable doubt, it is also a social critique of Rose's America, the outwardly booming but inwardly stagnating American of the 1950s. Rose champions the educated citizen of Juror 8 over the crumbling, incompetent and dangerous legal institution. Twelve Angry Men is a panorama of American life, spanning the bigoted attitudes of the past and the cultural listlessness of the time while reaching for a future where citizens like Juror 8 abound, reaching like the torch-bearing arm of the Statue of Liberty.

[massachusetts8]

Anyone able to give me some feedback or a mark out of ten! I greatly appreciate it.

Humanity has to break free from the past if they are to move forward. Discuss in relation to Ransom.

   In Ransom, David Malouf weaves the grand themes of the Trojan War as he recreates the section of Homer’s The Illiad, in which King Priam journeys to the Archaen camp to retrieve the mutilated corpse of his son. The novel suggests that in order for human beings to liberate themselves, they must cease living in past experiences. Through letting go of hatred and tension, leaders are able to persevere through their limited life. However, Malouf highlights that embracing the past allows individuals to move forward. Moreover, it is through breaking free from obligations and overcoming fear that one can truly achieve catharsis. Thus in order for one to liberate oneself, it involves many factors.
   In some ways, Malouf suggests that men must discard the past to continue on with life. In holding feelings of hatred, revenge or pride, individuals burden themselves and are unable to progress forward. Through emancipating themselves from these previous recollections they are able to adopt a new optimistic perspective of life. The Archaen warrior, Achilles is overwhelmed with grief and consumed in his “self-defeating cycle of rage that wastes his spirit in despair” after he loses Patroclus, “his soulmate” to Hector, his “implacable enemy.” Referring to Hector as an “enemy” serves to highlight Achilles’ hatred and vengeance towards the Trojan prince. In allowing theses feelings to be expressed, Achilles immobilizes himself and is unable to assuage his anguish even as he desecrates Hector’s corpse as if he is under the influence of a “darker agency.” Accepting the ransom offered by Priam, Achilles “breaks free from the spell that binds him” and does not lose face. His transformation from the past is shown by Malouf as he describes the scene as a “dreamlike quality.” Furthermore, although being divided by the fortunes of war that separate Greece and Troy, both Achilles and Priam are able to momentarily disregard this dichotomy and successfully liberate themselves and Hector’s body. Through the shared humanity as “mere mortals,” both leaders are able to let go of the Trojan War and persevere toward adopting a new perspective as shown by Troy’s gates “gleaming with gold” and Achilles’ hut is “visited by lightness.”  Thus by moving away from past feelings of hatred, humans are able to move forward.
   On the other hand, Malouf demonstrate that through accepting the past, individuals can progress. Despite conflicted emotions of betrayal by the gods against loyalty to the gods, many humans are able to understand their previous life experiences and move on. Some people even use the past to make other realise the notion of the human condition. The Trojan king could have easily been amongst the “rabble of the slave children” had his sister, Hesione not saved him from his ignominious existence. After his promotion to leader of Troy, Priam’s receptivity to the gods falters as he believes that they set him up as an “ancient doll”
 only to mock him. Reassured by the goddess Iris who feeds Priam the ludicrous notion of “chance,” Priam ultimately accepts that his ransom as a child was not a mockery. He uses this past experience as a catalyst for his journey to the Archaen camp in which he “takes on the lighter bond of simply being a man” and show humbleness to retrieve the body of Hector. Additionally, having been saved from his anonymous existence, Priam further desires to leave an image that is a “living one” which highlights the king’s ability to move forwards. Furthermore, the common carter Somax’ insightful wisdom and past experiences of the loss of his “three sons and four daughters” allows him to change the king. As Somax walks around “with a near broke heart,” the ordinary villager shows stoicism as he perseveres through life and understands that humans “go on for all [their] losses.” Through his heartache of the past, Somax enables others and himself to understand mortality and move forward.
   Ransom also explores the way in which individuals can achieve catharsis by breaking free from self-doubt and expectations rather than the past to move forward. Through his third person narration, Malouf endeavours to make readers privy to the characters’ emotions and torment. In doing so, he also shows the transformation of individuals, suggesting that they must challenge their roles and inner fear to move forward. Priam transgresses the confinements of his regal reputation by using “chance” as recourse to define his actions which could have labelled him a heretic. The initially self-doubting Priam was a “stickler for convention” and is dissuaded by his council when he reveals his idea of removing all “glittering distraction” to appeal to the brutal Achilles. By subjecting himself to a vulnerable situation at his “frail old age,” Priam demonstrates that he has overcome his fear of death and of the looming Greek victory. Moreover as he successfully ransoms the body of Hector by appealing to Achilles “as a father,” Priam is able to achieve catharsis and continue forward in his limited life in which he dies bravely as shown by his “ghastly far off smile.” Subsequently, Achilles is also liberated as “the warrior within him is momentarily subdued” in his meeting with Priam, enabling Achilles to let go of his heroic nature and be in touch with his softer, more intuitive side. Malouf portrays this transformation as Achilles sheds tears over Hector’s corpse and reflects on his life which is close to its end similar to Priam. Thus it is through breaking free from expectations and fear that enables individuals to move forward.
   Ransom explores humanity’s actions as they try to persevere through life. The novel suggests that by moving away from past sentiments of hatred, individuals can move onwards. Yet, Malouf also shows that the past can be used to progress forward in life and relieving themselves from the burdens of their roles, an individual can have a cathartic ending. Thus while humankind must emancipate themselves from history, they must also accept their experiences as well.

[Sapphire]

A Christmas Carol in more a social commentary than it is a moral tale. Discuss.

Charles Dickens', A Christmas Carol, Remember to underline the title in the exam! presents an exploration of differing ideas and values through an enthralling tale of morality. I think it would be better to start with a contextualising sentence rather than getting straight to naming the book and the author. Perhaps refer to the setting, like ‘Set during nineteenth century England…’ or ‘Against the backdrop of Industrial England’   In A Christmas Carol, Dickens demonstrates the idea that a life of ignorance towards morals sounds clumpy, ‘a life devoid of morals’ or something like that would be better will lead to an inevitable doom in the afterlife. In addition to this, Dickens also shows that that a lack of ethics can lead to an inner suffering that plagues one’s life. Furthermore, Dickens suggests that morality is the helping hand that society so desperately needs. Conversely, Dickens makes a social commentary on society a  ‘social commentary’ implies that it is on society, there is no need to add that by pointing out the hardship of the poorer classes which paints the wealthier classes in an extremely poor light. How does showing the hardships of one class make the other class seem bad? Dickens attacks the inertia of the rich – the fact that those like Scrooge make flippant comments like ‘Are there no Workhouses?’ rather than attacking them just because they’re well off. You need to make yourself clearer here. Eg. ‘by highlighting the plight of the poor, Dickens attacks the inertia of the wealthy class’


Dickens insinuates that an existence which involves ignorance to morals eventually leads to anguish in the afterlife. Dickens demonstrates this idea through the character of Jacob Marley who comes to warn Scrooge of his eternal suffering, should he continue to be ignorant towards human morality. The character of Jacob Marley serves as a harbinger for the punishment awaiting those who live selfishly like Scrooge does. GoodThe ghost of Jacob Marley tells Scrooge of the chain he ‘forged in life’ that he is now forced to wear. Dickens symbolizes Marley’s chain as a remnant of our past wrongdoings, thereby warning his readers of the doom they will suffer if they do not choose to live by principles such as generosity, compassion and sympathy for others. Moreover, this reinforces the moral points that Dickens wishes to get across. But what are these moral points? Be more explicit in defining key words from the prompt

In addition to this, a lack of morals can lead to an inner suffering which leaves the individual isolated and alone. Dickens emphasises this through the character of Ebenezer Scrooge who is seen to be an ‘odious’ and ‘stingy’ old man. Scrooge’s life is shown to be one of innate suffering and loneliness. Dickens uses the life of Scrooge to reinforce the idea of the woe that those who lack morals face. Although Scrooge is depicted as a greedy man who does not care for that company of others, he serves as an example of all that we wish to avoid in this world. By emphasising Scrooge’s anguish, Dickens provides his readers with a lesson of morality, by showing them the miserable life that one will face if they lack values.

While you make decent points, your discussion is a bit lacking. You make several claims that you do not support, ‘Scrooge’s life is shown to be one of innate suffering and loneliness’ – show me some evidence to support this. Tell me about how he eats his ”melancholy dinner” alone or how nobody wishes to approach him on the streets.  Also, you say, ‘By emphasising Scrooge’s anguish’- you have provided no examples of his anguish, let alone how Dickens emphasises it. In fact, at the beginning of the novella, Scrooge is described by the narrator to be content with his lifestyle – “it was the very thing he liked. To edge his way along the crowded paths of life warning all human sympathy to keep its distance”. Pointing out Scrooge’s realisation that he is in fact lonely and miserable, after his journey with the Ghosts of Christmases, would strengthen your argument here.

Furthermore, Dickens suggests that morality is the saviour of mankind and can help ease the despair of others.. Dickens’ broader point here is that neglect of the poor won’t only result in the despair of those who need aid but also, to all those like Scrooge who turn a blind eye. It would add sophistication to your argument if you discuss the joy Scrooge gets out of helping Tiny Tim. Dickens reinforces this idea through the character of Tiny Tin who is foretold that he will ‘surely die’ if another person does not intervene to ease his suffering. The character of Tiny Tim is a clever ploy by Dickens to strike sympathy and guilt in the hearts of his readers and to demonstrate to them that their selfish ways do impact others. Moreover, Dickens emphasises this idea by showing the impact of Scrooge’s moral transformation and the effect this has on Tiny Tim’s life. He does not die, and lives a happier and more comfortable life. Hence, Dickens uses his tale of morality to encourage readers to think about their morals and the effect they have on others.

Conversely, Dickens does make a social comment on society again, there is really no need for the ‘on society’ by depicting the corruption and exploitation present in Victorian society. Dickens demonstrates embodies, even symbolises, would be a better word here the attitudes of the wealthier class through the selfishness of Scrooge. When Scrooge refers to the poorer classes as the ‘surplus population’ Dickens uses this sentence to embody the attitude that many of the wealthier classes hold against the poor. Thereby, he makes an elusive critique of societal values and ideas.Nice This is further shown as he contrasts the lives of Bob Cratchit and Scrooge. Clearly they are both of different social standings and therefore live very different lives. However, Bob is shown is shown to be happier and loving than Scrooge, regardless of the fact that he is significantly poorer. Some quotation would make this nicer, for example Dickens describes the Cratchits as not materially well-off but “happy, grateful, pleased with one another, and contented with the time”. This suggests that Dickens wished to demonstrate to readers that the wealthier classes were not as well off as one would think. Hmmm, I don’t see what you mean here? Are you referring to emotional poverty? If so, make this more clear! Also, the ‘wealthier class’ that Scrooge is a part of is the working, middle class. Therefore, Dickens does make evasive critiques of society within his novella but continues to centralize the story around the morality of individuals. Decent link

In essence, A Christmas Carol is more a tale of morality rather than a social commentary. The ideas that Dickens presents in the novella are intended to enlighten and educate the reader of the importance of morals and values in one’s life. Dickens highlights many ideas that are centred on morality such as the detrimental effect of ignorance towards morals. Likewise, this is reinforced by the idea that a lack of morals leads to an individual’s inner suffering. Furthermore, Dickens suggests that our morals have a significant impact on the lives of others.  Conversely, Dickens also makes allusive comments on societal issues but A Christmas Carol is mainly a tale of morals.Good conclusion

Overall, you have good ideas but sometimes it feels like your paragraphs are just a list of topic sentences. The structure you follow is 'Dickens insinuates/suggests X (you've made big claims, eg. ' Dickens suggests that morality is the saviour of mankind'), then Dickens reinforces X.' This is great but your discussion and textual knowledge seems to be lacking. I want to see you refer to the minor characters that demonstrate Dickens' ideal moral man - I'm thinking of Old Fezziwig and Fred here. Some more quoting would be nice too. The novella is laden with description, weave some of that into your own writing.

Also, don't look at the story as 'rich people need to help out the poor so they can be good people'. Scrooge himself becomes happier when he becomes a second father to Tiny Tim. There are two main elements in this prompt 'moral tale' and 'social commentary'. Be sure to define the key words explicitly in your essay. You can add some depth to it by describing the link between the two, rather than commenting on them separately.

I hope this somehow helps