scandin9:
Not sure why this is important since there's only one Elizabethan text on the English lists, but:
Elizabethan: when Queen Liz I was on the throne (1558-1603)
Jacobean: King James' reign (1603-1625)
The Elizabethan Era was arguably more prosperous, and because it ended with a war, this left King James with a massive debt, exacerbated by the bubonic plague circa 1620. This wasn't really reflected in literature too much, as Shakespeare wrote some of his best plays in Jacobean times (most notably Macbeth, the plot of which had strong ties to the current political circumstances of the day.) There were many artists who were overlooked however, as the dire economic straights made it difficult to establish oneself.
I would argue that this climate led to a fascination with the psyche, especially abnormal conditions. Robert Burton's
Anatomy of Melancholy was one of the most influential in this regard. You can see this in some of Shakespeare's later plays too,
The Tempest and
Antony and Cleopatra which are both on the Lit. syllabus have subplots or at least motifs concerning 'The Other' and the whims of emotion. But I digress- the biggest difference between the two was that one had Queen Elizabeth the other had King James; they're not vastly distinctive eras. Ultimately Elizabeth is remembered a tad more fondly, but the general consensus was that James did the best he could with the hand he was dealt.
I'm sure there are other websites who could read a lot more into the zeitgeist so try googling it?
smile+energy:
Do you need help understanding the views in your text? Cause I'll need to know what you're studying if that's the case. But in terms of the difference between
views and
values, I think it's kind of arbitrary. I suppose 'views' could refer more to political inclinations or whether the author subscribed to a certain school of thought (eg. Marxism, Feminism etc.) whereas 'values' are more like core beliefs about what is important in life, in relationships, in literature etc. If an author has a certain view then I would associate that with his/her mindset and conscious outlook, but values are more internal and emotionally-driven.
From an English perspective, these two words mean basically the same thing; it's a way to encourage you to talk about more than just the text.
Rishi97:
archenemy's version is much improved, but remember, this description must have a purpose. This is where the creative style becomes really tricky. 'Show, don't tell' is a good rule to help you write well, particularly when describing emotions. It's a lot more effective to say 'his eyes darted frantically, his knuckles burning white' than just 'he was really tense.' And it can be excellent for setting the scene too; lines like "Clouds of dust particles hung suspended in the air, and with every breath I drew into my lungs it only grew harder and harder to breathe" establish a sense of suffocation and struggle. But while this sentence/paragraph will contribute to your overall mark for writing style, you aren't getting much for the content. Yes, it's written well and the language is good, but you have to have the ideas to back it up, and they have to come across clearly. So don't feel you have to get wrapped up in 'purple prose' or really flowery language. This was why I recommended starting with mindmaps or prompt breakdowns to ensure the core of your piece is sophisticated enough to justify later developments.
If you're committed to writing creatively, then I'd say have
something in every line, or at least every second line that could give you credit. For instance, the woman who covers her baby with a straw hat - this is great because it says something about the human spirit in times of turmoil. You don't have to unpack everything, but ensure there are enough instances of implicit commentary (passing references to other characters, setting the scene) and explicit references (protagonist's psyche, course of events) to maximise your mark.
Those who do well at the end of the year writing proper creative short stories are usually the ones who can look at things in a different light. If a bomb goes off in your story, what will you focus on? A good rule of thumb is to consider the other senses; don't write about how you saw the rubble, talk about hearing a city crumble around you. Don't write about seeing dead bodies, write about how the stench of death burns your tongue as though you are tasting suffering like it's a corrosive acid. This instantly becomes more descriptive, though as I said, the content is very much up to you
Enigma:
Here is a blog post I wrote about responding to prompts, consult that for the basics.
With regards to underlining key terms, it's definitely an effective way of ensuring you address all aspects of the prompt, (assuming you're actually doing something with the words you've underlined) but don't forget to look at the
implications as well.
"There are characters with redeeming and despicable qualities on both sides of the racial divide. Discuss."
The implication here is that one's qualities cannot categorically determine values when it comes to race, and that subscribing to a belief does not preclude one from having either good or bad traits.
The danger with the 'key word' method is that it tends to oversimplify things. A lower-middle band response might look at this, take the same words you've taken, and write one paragraph on all the redeeming features in the text, one on despicable features, and then one on the racial divide and who's on what side, without ever taking into account how these elements work together. This is where having mini-contentions for each paragraph can really be helpful, so you're not just writing a paragraph on 'redeeming features,' you're writing one on 'why redeeming features aren't necessarily cardinal traits and how racial prejudices do not, in isolation, make a character irredeemable.' (none of this is text-specific so don't take these as perfect examples)
With regards to your other questions, yes of course you can agree or disagree with the prompt. The terminology of 'Discuss' or 'Do you agree' is irrelevant; every essay you write will be a discussion about whether or not you agree with the prompt.
Some people use plans and stick to them, some write with no stimuli other than the prompt. Find wherever you are on this spectrum.
Ultimately there will be concepts you're quite familiar with, but rote-learning is a waste of time. You never know what the prompt might be, and you'll always score better if you write something shaky but relevant, than if you write a solid piece with no relevance to the topic.
Every essay you write this year will be a practice essay, except for your exam. Therefore, you have little to lose by trying new things. Those "momentary pauses" might be gaps in knowledge (in which case you'll have to revisit the content) or it might be to do with your expression. See how you go just forcing yourself to write under time. If you pause for longer than 30 seconds, change the sentence and try again. You can also refine your pieces too, don't forget. Feedback from your teacher can be valuable here, that way you're building on your skills and not making the same mistakes.
I am also scared of writing about concepts which I have not addressed in practice essays...
Why? Your teacher is hardly going to judge you for an error in interpretation or expression. I've read a GAT essay in response to an infographic about diamond mining that simply said: 'Diamonds are something I buy for ma bitchez.' I guarantee whatever you've got to say can't possibly be that stupid.
The whole point of practice essays is to try out new concepts. Write heaps of 'formative' essays where you're trialling new things and developing your skills, then test yourself with 'summative pieces' that just deal with whatever you know at that moment. But don't be too concerned if not everything you write is your best work ever; it's all about the process.