Compilation of Context Feedback

[brenden]

Hey everyone!
I've decided to lock all three stickies and turn them into collations of essays and feedback. I'll be marking a lot less this year, so hopefully this encourages other people to give marking a try! In hindsight, these threads probably would have discouraged other users.

Note for any confused users: Definitely put your essays in the English Work Submission and Marking board!!! Just because these stickies are locked doesn't mean the board isn't open .

Wishing you happy writings and much luck!,
Brenden.

Edit - bangali_lok: here's a bunch of feedbacks - you possibly have the same problems so read through some of these!
Creative
Expository
Expository
Creative
Expository
Expository/creative
Quite a few essays
Expository
Creative
Hybrid
Expository
Expository
Expository
Creative
Expository
Expository
Expository
Expository
Something
Expository
Something
Expository
Expository
Expository/creative
Expository
Update: 03/08/15

[Mongaa]

In times of conflict, ordinary people can do extraordinary things.

Conflict is an inevitable, and an inescapable facet of our human life. Conflict is what gives us the opportunity to grow, develop and prosper. The way in which we respond to conflict is what set’s us aside from others, hence revealing out true inner selves.  Actions speak louder than words.  It’s a commonly used phrase, but what does it actually mean? The way we are perceived by others is not determined by what we are thinking-it’s determined by the way we handle the various situations in life. Some individuals get lost in their adverse thoughts about the consequences of what they are experiencing, while others rise above the rest and accept, even challenge what they are facing. Bruce Beresford’s Paradise Road shows us how the most ordinary of people can make the most dramatic and extraordinary differences to the outcomes of the conflicts of the people around them as well as their own.

It is often the case that the most successful people in life are not those that have the most successful people in life are not those that have the most intelligence or even the most knowledge, but rather those who have the ability to keep on striving, and the strength to keep pushing themselves until they achieve what they desire. The women in 'Paradise Road' come across a number of different conflicts due to the circumstances that they are forced into. Their harsh experiences are due to the global conflicts of World War 2, environmental conflict due to the hostile physical conditions, racial conflicts, inner conflicts and the list goes on. Many of the women respond to the conflicts in different ways, however the approach that some of them take heavily influences the prisoners around them.  Susan, who is said to be the “shyest little thing at nursing school”, is able to find an unexpected inner strength and confidence that allows her to endure a cruel and horrific punishment from the Japanese. This incident is able to connect the other women and bring them together in their support and admiration of her being able to survive such horrendous abuse.”That’s one to tell your grandchildren”.

Another prime example of how the response of one of the women affects the others is of Dr. Verstak, who is  German-Jewish, and is  considered by some on the camp as on “the other side”. Dr Verstak provides medical advice and assistance to the other prisoners by trading with the guards. What is ironic and also quite amazing is that she is not actually a real medical doctor. Dr Verstak's actions  can be seen to complement one of Bruce Beresford’s main contentions, that the most extraordinary achievements are made by those who do not necessarily have the most knowledge, but have the most persistence and will to succeed.

It's human nature to disagree and argue and so conflict is encountered by everyone , everyday, whether it’s a guilty conscience deciding whether to confess something, or a simple dispute between some friends, it alters our views no matter which way you look at it. Adrienne ,a major character in ‘Paradise Road’ is initially shown as snobbish since she was part of the European elite, but as she understands the face of conflict, she realizes what she must do in order to survive the Japanese Prison camp. Her motivation and confidence provides support and comfort to the other women. Adrienne’s close relationship with Margaret allows them to form the vocal orchestra which completely unites the other women and assists them through its healing power to gradually get over the brutal immolation of Wing. The fact the Adrienne is able to run the vocal orchestra, the main source of motivation for the other women ,displays her ability as an ordinary wife to overcome incredible obstacles and achieve an exceptional feats just by not letting go of the carriage that is her determination and will to survive.

Oskar Schindler was a brave and courageous man who was originally a German spy and industrialist as well as a member of the Nazi community. After witnessing the treatment of some of the Jews at a concentration camp, he changed his motives and began rescuing as many of them as possible. Due to the fact that Schindler was just an ordinary member of the local government officials seeking profit from the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and was still able to outwit Hitler himself, goes to show how such normal people like he can act in extraordinary ways to become a symbol of hope for the people around them. Schindler was able to rescue around 1200 Jews, and so his actions resemble those of Adrienne in that both  their ambition and courage to help those in need act like cushions for the people suffering in the camps.

On the other hand, the Japanese guards that were present at the concentration camp are also pretty ordinary in that they were normal citizens obeying the orders of their leaders. It is therefore quite easy to believe that they would be extremely strict on how they behave towards their enemy; however this is not entirely the case, which is evident when we see changes in Sergeant Tomiashi and Colonel Hirota as the film progresses. After the death of wing, the vocal orchestra is what provides the women their strength to continue on surviving,  and so it grows and advances rather quickly in connecting the women and forming relationships between the women.  The vocal orchestra also goes a long way in changing the perspective of Sergeant Tomiashi, who alongside with Colonel Hirota expose their inner reserves of compassion for music. Tomiashi really opens up, an example is when he sings to Adrienne privately or when he angrily dismisses a soldier on an interruption of one of the performances by the orchestra.  Another obvious example of how Hirota permits the vocal orchestra to keep on practicing and performing even though writing music is forbidden by Captain Tanaka.

When people encounter conflict, they often change, sometimes for the worst and most of the times for the best. Facing conflict and taking it on head to head often places us in situations where we must struggle in order to escape. This struggle reveals who we really are, and those with the strongest will often notice that they can act in extraordinary ways without even realizing it. Many of the women in Paradise Road are shown to be ordinary wives, nurses, and missionaries who are tossed together and so experience various conflicts collectively. Adrienne is able to rise above the rest, showing enormous courage and resilience therefore becoming a symbol of hope for the others. Her act of heroism is similar to Oskar Schindler who was also portrayed as a symbol of hope for the Jews in World War 2. These incredible accomplishments by ordinary men and women support the idea that conflict, when dealt with persistence and resilience gives us the opportunity to reveal our true inner selves and perform extraordinary things that we often think are not possible.

Please reply as quickly as possible, thanks

[brenden]

Anonymous submission. -- The SAC task for this essay is to be written in 30 minutes, hence the odd structure of the following essay.
(Will be here to mark later)

We always feel that our own sense of reality is more important than everyone else’s
For many Western civilians, the concept of totalitarianism conjures an image of Adolf Hitler, who immediately sought to “destroy democracy with the weapons of democracy” upon his election. As a dictator, Hitler was steadfast about his views and seized his power as the ruler of Germany to force citizens to succumb to his ideals. In other words, he was not considerate of alternative perspectives on law and order; he regarded other peoples’ views with a grain of salt. In the same manner, Leunig’s “The Lot” satirically exposes the flaw in Australian Government as being parochial with regard to the “national identity” conveyed to other countries internationally. He believes that creativity is the key to meaningful interaction, and it should be embraced rather than stifled. However, Australian politicians “chime in” with the languid etiquette and formality when it comes to promoting ‘Australianism’, and are dismissive of society’s fruitless attempts to render Australian culture into something that is exhilarating and exciting. This is particularly evident in Leunig’s light-hearted anecdote of his son’s singing of the national anthem, playfully suggesting that the Australian Government sought to bestow on its people an anthem with a “do-it-yourself component”. Such satire undermines the creativity of our politicians. These politicians forgo the pride Australians have in their culture. They refuse to clamber down from their authoritarian pedestal to permit people to add their own creative touches to the anthem, as is evidenced by the assertion that the words in the anthem should be perfectly articulated. There is no room for the innocence of children whose variations on the anthem are described by Leunig as being “fabulous” and “worthy”. This frigidity is reminiscent of Hitler’s rule.
On the other hand, Leunig attempts to influence readers with his own views, thus implying that the quirky manner in which he views the World is worthier than the “Gleichschaltung” or ‘same circuit’ notion conveyed by Hitler in “The Message of the Mufti”. Whilst Leunig argues that everyone has a right to express their own views, where it is the “radical abnormality” of human nature that should be cherished, his colloquial dismissal of the “institution” of Australian Rules Football as “mass boofhead tribalism” suggests otherwise. This scathing social commentary would be considered mean-spirited by millions of AFL supporters in Australia. Similarly, Leunig asserts that hotels are “five-star headaches”, which propels readers to consider luxury and general consumer culture as being problematic.

By the same token, the writer’s irreverent painting of Pablo Picasso challenges the conservative notions of artists as being god-like institutions deserving admiration. By gently caricaturing Picasso as having “large pendulous testicles” that look like “rustic cheeses”, Leunig attempts to critique the idea of commoditized art, where the brash portrayal of Picasso humorously contrasts with the ‘mando unico’ of the “orderly and hushed” art we see in national galleries or the realm of commerce. He seeks to construe that “true art” is not reflective of the “fanfares” and “prizes” it has won, where the refinement of the original piece by critics is in essence “rewarding its counterfeit”. Conversely, Leunig does not acknowledge that there are people in society whose taste in art is one of soft and controlled colour, instead of art which is framed by bold obscurity. For instance, it is stereotypical of the older generation to appreciate paintings which are serene, as oppose to the daring pieces of artwork which Leunig calls “true” art. The proverb “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” can be extended to define art, where real art is dependent on the observer. However, Leunig does not adequately cater for this unbiased perspective on what art is; he does not accept another’s view. Instead, he seeks to emphasise views that run parallels with his own, such as Lao Tzu’s comment about self-conscious art.
Leunig’s highly individualistic ideas are alienating in their idiosyncrasy. As a result, readers are led to feel uncomfortable at times, because they are encountering an alternative reality that is different from the norm. The discomfort they experience is one of cognitive dissonance, where reconsidering established attitudes towards societal issues is psychologically disabling. Furthermore, the uneasiness experienced by readers is proof that Leunig has asserted his viewpoints very strongly and deridingly, which leads the astute reader to conclude that the writer views his own sense of reality as being more significant than the wide majority.

[brenden]

The first person deleted  their account, so I guess I'll just skip straight to this one?
*For anyone reading, take my advice with a grain of salt. I always have been a creative writer. I literally have nfi how to write an expository essay. You could find someone better to peer review this essay. I can, however, check for skilful use of language etc., and I don't think anyone who knows how to write an expository will be marking this essay any time soon. Lol.

We always feel that our own sense of reality is more important than everyone else’s
Sick prompt.
For many Western civilians, the concept of totalitarianism conjures an image of Adolf Hitler, who immediately sought to “destroy democracy with the weapons of democracy” upon his election. As a dictator, Hitler was steadfast about his views and seized his power as the ruler of Germany to force citizens to succumb to his ideals. In other words, he was not considerate of alternative perspectives on law and order; he regarded other peoples’ views with a grain of salt. In the same manner, Leunig’s “The Lot” satirically exposes the flaw in Australian Government as being parochial with regard to the “national identity” conveyed to other countries internationally. He believes that creativity is the key to meaningful interaction, and it should be embraced rather than stifled. However, Australian politicians “chime in” with the languid etiquette and formality when it comes to promoting ‘Australianism’, and are dismissive of society’s fruitless attempts to render Australian culture into something that is exhilarating and exciting. This is particularly evident in Leunig’s light-hearted anecdote of his son’s singing of the national anthem, playfully suggesting that the Australian Government sought to bestow on its people an anthem with a “do-it-yourself component”. Such satire undermines the creativity of our politicians. These politicians forgo the pride Australians have in their culture. They refuse to clamber down from their authoritarian pedestal to permit people to add their own creative touches to the anthem, as is evidenced by the assertion that the words in the anthem should be perfectly articulated. There is no room for the innocence of children whose variations on the anthem are described by Leunig as being “fabulous” and “worthy”. This frigidity is reminiscent of Hitler’s rule.
On the other hand, Leunig attempts to influence readers with his own views, thus implying that the quirky manner in which he views the World is worthier than the “Gleichschaltung” or ‘same circuit’ notion conveyed by Hitler in “The Message of the Mufti”. Whilst Leunig argues that everyone has a right to express their own views, where it is the “radical abnormality” of human nature that should be cherished, his colloquial dismissal of the “institution” of Australian Rules Football as “mass boofhead tribalism” suggests otherwise. I needed to read this a few times.This scathing social commentary would be considered mean-spirited by millions of AFL supporters in Australia. Similarly, Leunig asserts that hotels are “five-star headaches”, which propels readers to consider luxury and general consumer culture as being problematic.

By the same token, the writer’s irreverent painting of Pablo Picasso challenges the conservative notions of artists as being god-like institutions deserving admiration. By gently caricaturing Picasso as having “large pendulous testicles” that look like “rustic cheeses” -Brenden laughs-, Leunig attempts to critique the idea of commoditized art, where the brash portrayal of Picasso humorously contrasts with the ‘mando unico’ of the “orderly and hushed” art we see in national galleries or the realm of commerce. He seeks to construe that “true art” is not reflective of the “fanfares” and “prizes” it has won, where the refinement of the original piece by critics is in essence “rewarding its counterfeit”. Conversely, Leunig does not acknowledge that there are people in society whose taste in art is one of soft and controlled colour, instead of art which is framed by bold obscurity. For instance, it is stereotypical of the older generation to appreciate paintings which are serene, as oppose to the daring pieces of artwork which Leunig calls “true” art. The proverb “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” can be extended to define art, where real art is dependent on the observer. However, Leunig does not adequately cater for this unbiased perspective on what art is; he does not accept another’s view. Instead, he seeks to emphasise views that run parallels with his own, such as Lao Tzu’s comment about self-conscious art.
Leunig’s highly individualistic ideas are alienating in their idiosyncrasy. As a result, readers are led to feel uncomfortable at times, because they are encountering an alternative reality that is different from the norm. The discomfort they experience is one of cognitive dissonance, where reconsidering established attitudes towards societal issues is psychologically disabling. Furthermore, the uneasiness experienced by readers is proof that Leunig has asserted his viewpoints very strongly and deridingly, which leads the astute reader to conclude that the writer views his own sense of reality as being more significant than the wide majority.

Well my disclaimer at the start was a waste. Your writing is great, but I just have no clue about the essay. It did remind me a bit of a text response when you were talking about Leunig, though (don't know if that's a good/bad thing?)

[brenden]

An anonymous response, written around 45 minutes.

Other people shape our sense of reality
Reality is a product of past experiences and an evolving sense of self. Furthermore, it is a construct which is interpreted according to internal evaluation and one draws on their experiences to make sense of the World. One man’s attempts to understand an often confusing contemporary reality is observed in Michael Leunig’s “The Lot”, whose personal ruminations explore the influence of society’s maxim on subsequent behaviour. In other words, individual perceptions are predisposed to shape reality.
The attitudes of people are influenced by others around them. According to Gordon Allport, it is construed than an attitude is a subjective entity, as it is a learned, stable and relatively enduring evaluation of an object that can affect an individual’s behaviour. For this reason, it can be “moulded” into shapes; synonymous to Leunig suggesting that the imposition of adult authority stifles the innocence and idiosyncrasy of children – qualities that should be considered “fabulous” and “worthy”. Moreover, it is through observational learning or modelling that individuals observe the attitudes of influential people. Provided that the consequences for expressing these attitudes are positive, observers are likely to adopt a similar viewpoint. Similarly, behaviours are shaped through the Operant Conditioning principles suggested by Barhus Frederic Skinner, where reinforcement can strengthen an attitude, whereas punishment can weaken behaviour. These two psychological theories of learning suggest that ideologies are learned based on the involvement of other people. In the extract, “Into the Prickle Bush”, Leunig condemns the oppression of institutionalized society, where the unnamed martyr “B” had falsified her testimony. Leunig implies that her angst was as a result of the liaison with the older boys, which would be deemed inappropriate by the adult World. Thus, it can be inferred that sexual harassment of an individual is posed as a taboo topic by superiors, who suggest that abuse should not be overtly discussed. As a result, the views of the “public intellectual” are a major determinant of how one makes sense of their present.
In like fashion, the proclivity of humans to conform is a product of their gregarious nature. Specifically, the experiment conducted by Solomon Asch in 1951 demonstrated that participants are likely to conform to the majority opinion. Factors influencing this tendency to imitate are investigated in Bond and Smith’s Meta-Analysis of significant moderator variables. Particularly, it was depicted that Normative Influence, the tendency to succumb and gain the approval of other group members, increased if people shared physical attributed. This can be extended to suggest that appearance is a constituent in determining social identity, or the group which an individual chooses to belong to. The individual in turn abides by the conventions of the group, such that the diversity of opinion between members is constricted to a single or unanimous viewpoint. Such behaviour is evident in collectivist cultures, where a person is encouraged to consider the needs of a group as being more important than individual requirements. In short, the parochial-minded are of the notion that harmony within society is disrupted if eccentricity and irreverence are legitimised.
Conversely, Leunig adulates the “radical abnormality” possessed by humans; he suggests that peculiarities should be embraced to evade “the rot of conformity”. In particular, Leunig’s depiction of national identity is scathing, as the concept is likened to “a rucksack full of bricks and broken glass”. Interlaced within this bitter tone, the subtext of a personal plea for more “careful, humane” interaction is suggested. In this manner, it is established that different viewpoints on social issues should be tolerated. If subjectivity is recognized in oneself and others, then communities are less likely to be affronted by individualistic opinion, and likewise, fewer are inclined to offend or seem ignorant. Another instance of Leunig’s avoidance of mass or urban culture is in his description of a five-star hotel as a “headache”, in the extract “How to be a Cartoonist”. His alternative reality on luxury propels the general audience to reconsider commercial life as being problematic. Consequently, it is implied that one should abide by their own morals and sense of righteousness, or repudiate the interference of others on influencing behaviour.

[brenden]

Also an anonymous response. 45 minutes.

The relationship between memory and reality
In order to understand one’s history, individuals have a proclivity to remember past events via the medium of memory. At the broadest level, the comprehension of reality evolving as a child influences a person’s current perception of the World. The novel “Spies” by Michael Frayn depicts and elderly wartime survivor and protagonist, Stephen Wheatley, who looks back from the “perspective of the years” to observe his modifications of memory as an adult. Specifically, evading traumatic experiences in the past is a means of constructing a false reality, enabling the incoherence of memory to be pronounced.
Typically, an experience which causes discomfort or borders on unfamiliarity is repressed. This is evidenced by Sigmund Freud’s suggestion, as a psychoanalyst, that humans tend to use defence mechanisms to protect the ego from anxiety. Such is suggestive of the weak nature of memory. It is almost as though the construct has a mind of its own, by automatically suppressing embarrassing details in order to shape a makeshift or ideal reality of the individual. As the Dalai Lama states, “consciousness is conceptualized”, people are active in legitimising memories to fit the protocol of an institutionalized society. In the same manner, it can be observed that Stephen Wheatley leaves the remembrance of his childhood untouched for 50 years, primarily because of his realisation of the hidden identity of a man “who was entirely English”. The passive personality the elderly Stephen construes he harboured as a child implies that he viewed this clandestine acknowledgement as a form of criminal activity he was uncomfortable with. In essence, this uneasiness caused the memory to be transferred to the subconscious mind, such that the individual’s reality becomes one of sanctity.
Due to the absence of order, memory lacks a certain credibility. Being a construct which is a subset of reality, furthermore, this suggests that an individual’s current involvements are also skewed according to the vehemence with which they are experienced. For this reason, certain memories may be judged as being more significant than others, which does not necessarily replicate the sequence in which they occurred. This is particularly noted through the manner in which our senses are linked with an event, such that an activation or stimulation of the sense revives the memory. Stephen Wheatley, for example, is a victim to “glimpses from” his past, where the scent of the Privet is reminiscent of the lookout or “place across the frontier into another country altogether”. Similarly, the sound of a passing train evokes the “elusive terrors” he encountered in the Tunnel. In the preliminary stages of the novel, these events are described abstractly, with no mention or elucidation of event in between. Therefore, the way in which different aspects of memory are assembled to make a whole, with regard to the omission of certain proceedings, greatly influences our perception.

[brenden]

Anonymous submission.


Illusions have the power to conceal reality but never erase it’.

A quote from the 2012 VCE English examination report, ‘ Students should be encouraged to be bolder in what they write.’

My justification for this piece.

I thought I would revive my creative writing with this piece, I hope you enjoy the read and please take do not take offence, it’s all in context.


I want you to understand me.

My name is George I am a man of few words. No love, no joy, to my crux only one emotion is present, hate. There is only one illusion that helps me conceal the unforgiving nature of my reality – a line of cocaine. Cocaine controls the very essence of my life; I could not live without cocaine, and my indulgence in the spine tingling powder vivifies my life, creating nostalgic inclinations of a time that was not so long ago.

Despite my indulgences there is one reality I can never escape, it manifests every time I stop and think, and it is indeed pungent. I have a deep-seated aversion to the thought. I remember the night clearly…..

“Keep playing Julia, you know that when you play, the music just turns me on”

“Oh George stop it, you’re too nice” – Julia was beautiful she’s everything a man could ever want. Her fingers danced across the keyboard, she was loving, caring, sympathetic, and was the visage of purity and joy.

However, this is no love story that ends well, we didn’t get married, and we didn’t live ‘happily ever-after’. No, that night ended me.

Julia went off, she had work the next day, I saw her to the car. I walked up back into my apartment and as I sat back down I heard a thump. Silence, nothingness it was as if the very night had died. I ran outside, she was there. Her body lay on the floor dismembered; the very life had been drawn from within her. She was nothing, she was dead and her blood ran into the gutter. Her head lay still while her luscious blonde hair covered her face and her beautiful blue eyes glistened in the dark moonlight – life had played the cruellest of cards.
My knees weakened and a collapse was inevitable. I had no words, nothing.

I see people, they worry about being attractive, and they’re concerned with who should win the election or whether or not they are conformists or not. To them I say, be quiet – you worry about the very minute details of life. I have seen things your eyes would not believe, death upon the horizon while you sit comfortably in your chair at home thinking about what ‘new idea’ you will create for your piece in tomorrow’s paper. Don’t patronise me, no please do not. When you wake up overdosed on cocaine in the middle of a public toilet cubicle with a card that says ‘Congratulations, you had sex with a $15 prostitute’, I will give you the full right to condemn me. You disgust me, you pretend that you’re not a conformist but you are you’re the visage of stupidity. You create cartoons for the paper; however, you sit here and judge others for using technology or not engaging with strangers. You know who you are, Michael Leuing. I read your work in the paper occasionally and it is drenched in pious. You’re continually arguing that ‘No realms of human endeavour seem immune from this gently flowing falseness and conformity’ – be quite please, save yourself the effort. You are no better you make your living by feeding people with an illusion. You give them the idea that by ‘living and wandering in the bush’ that they will somehow fabricate freedom and individuality. You’re lies are malignant and emblematic of your very own falseness and hypocrisy. 

I’ll tell you what real escapism is though, what protects me from the vile reality of Julia’s absence – cocaine. When I arise in the morning: I open my wallet and sift through until I find a $100 note, I prefer to have some class when a I perform my dastardly act. I roll it up, I slide open the bag that contains the white substance that provides the greatest concealment of reality and once again allows me to grasp ‘the sacred particles of joy’. Cocaine particles have a lot to teach me about making sense of my reality. I carefully and concisely spread the powder on my coffee table I should name it something else though. I stick one side of the note up my nostril and the other is immersed into the powder, I breathe in and inhale the most wondrous substance. It plays on my nerves, sends me into a wild state of mind. When you’re a cocaine addict life seems more like a series of random hallucinations, literally. I love the feeling of cocaine evaporating to my brain. It creates beautiful nostalgic thoughts and sends me into an illusion, reminding me of the times with Julia.

I remember the times when we would run around the park, laughing and her pearly white teeth illuminating joy and love. I didn’t need any protection from reality then, life was amazing. However, after her passing I needed all the shielding through illusions I could get to protect me from the very abhorrent nature of my reality.

I stay in touch by snorting cocaine, there’s not much more to it. For some of us reality is too harsh, too dark and it cocoons many of us in its web of darkness. Sometimes we just have to wander into the wilderness to grasp what is happening to us – to dream and draw a long bow. I guess my wilderness is the powdery wonder, cocaine.

Illusion at times is one of the great simple pleasures of our life, it’s a seductive hallucination that protects us from the deceitful and caustic reality, and for some a stimulant is required. They are powerful and inviting and indeed when you are faced with a harsh reality that embodies: death, hatred and a lust for escape they act as a mechanism to provide a semblance of momentary happiness.

To all, I say.
Unleash the illusions: I hope you do understand me now.

[brenden]

I want you to understand me.

My name is George Punctuate I am a man of few words. No love, no joy, to my crux only one emotion is present,colon not comma hate. There is only one illusion that helps me conceal the unforgiving nature of my reality – a line of cocaine. Cocaine controls the very essence of my life; I could not live without cocaine, and my indulgence in the spine tingling powder vivifies my life, creating nostalgic inclinations of a time that was not so long ago. I'm hoping that this story explains how a cocaine addict comes to use words like 'vivifies'

Despite my indulgences there is one reality I can never escape, it manifests every time I stop and think, and it is indeed pungent. This just seems unnatural/forced/out of place. Like. "And it is indeed pungent" just seems a strange thing to add, however, if we just use "despite my indulgences there is one pungent reality I can never escape, it manifests every..."  then it still sounds off. A stronger mark of punctuation might help, but I also think manifests could be used better. I have a deep-seated aversion to the thought. I remember the night clearly…..A deep-seated aversion to what thought?

“Keep playing Julia, you know that when you play, the music just turns me on”
I'm getting two conflicting character voices here. I'm not sure if it is deliberate or now, however, "Keep playing... turns me on" - I'm picturing a smarmy womanising type in a stained singlet lying on a tiny bed in a tiny apartment. A 'loose' type of character suited to clubs. Then "Oh George stop it, you're too nice" - If Julia is 'beautiful' and not 'sexy' or any such word, I'm assuming she is not a bimbo, and thus is being legitimate in her response to George. Would a beautiful/intelligent/non-bimbo girl be calling a guy that hangs around clubs etc 'too nice'? It just seems strange. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your characters, but that is also part of your responsibility as the writer.
“Oh George stop it, you’re too nice” – Julia was beautiful P she’s everything a man could ever want. Her fingers danced across the keyboard, she was loving, caring, sympathetic, and was the double was just smashed your flow in the face. "And the visage of purity.."visage of purity and joy.

However, this is no love story that ends well, we didn’t get married, and we didn’t live ‘happily ever-after’. No, that night ended me.
Unless it's your deliberate character voice, I'd revise to "this isn't a love story that ends well". punchier writing and more ominous. Comma too weak, use semi-colon, full stop or dash.
Julia went off lazy description here. went off is too ambiguous (even though it's cleared up with the next clause), she had work the next day, I saw her to the car. Three very different clauses in that sentence. I don't think it works. I walked up back into my apartment and as I sat back down I heard a thump. SilenceFull stop here, not comma., nothingness it was as if grammar/punctuation??? the very night had died. I ran outside, she was there. Her body lay on the floor dismembered This doesn't make sense - your character saw her to her car, however, she is laying in the gutter? And the sound heard was 'thump' not 'crash'. ; the very life had been drawn from within her. She was nothing, she was dead and her blood ran into the gutter. Her head lay still while her luscious blonde hair covered her face and her beautiful blue eyes glistened in the dark moonlight if her hair is covering her face, how can you see her eyes? – life had played the cruellest of cards. Green is great.
My knees weakened and a collapse was inevitable. I had no words, nothing. I think you could be more descriptive than nothing. Imagine floating in an abyss. Seems more ominous than 'nothing'.

So far we haven't got deep into the context however I appreciate you need to set up your story. The prompt has been hinted at but still lacking, again, you need to set up, so we will see. Be careful that your story doesn't have too many holes in it. I shouldn't have to ask the questions I'm asking.
I see people, they worry about being attractive, and they’re concerned with who should win the election or whether or not they are conformists or not. I loved this sentence until I say "or not they are conformists or not" or not or not. To them I say, be quiet  underline this or italicise it, because it's something he is saying.– you worry about the very minute details of life. I have seen things your eyes would not believe, death upon the horizon while you sit comfortably in your chair at home thinking about what ‘new idea’ you will create for your piece in tomorrow’s paper. Don’t patronise me, nocomma pleasecomma do not. When you wake up overdosed on cocaine in the middle of a public toilet cubicle with a card that says ‘Congratulations, you had sex with a $15 prostitute’, I will give you the full right to condemn me. You disgust mefull  stop or semi-colon here., you pretend that you’re not a conformist but you are you’re the visage of stupidity grammar/punct. You create cartoons for the paper; however, you sit here and judge others for using technology or not engaging with strangers. You know who you are, Michael Leuing. I read your work in the paper occasionally and it is drenched in pious. Why is a man who introduced himself as a man of few words saying something is drench in pious, and using other such descriptions? This is also quite out of place. You've flagged the connection to the text so it's incongruent with your story. A straight up example like this makes more sense in an essay, or in a letter to Leunig (you also mispelled Leunig but maybe typo) You’re continually arguing that ‘No realms of human endeavour seem immune from this gently flowing falseness and conformity’ – be quite please, save yourself the effort. You are no better you grammar/punct make your living by feeding people with an illusion. You give them the idea that by ‘living and wandering in the bush’ that they will somehow fabricate The illusion isn't that they will fabricate freedom. The illusion is that they will find freedom. You're saying that's fabricated. freedom and individuality. You’re lies are malignant and emblematic of your very own falseness and hypocrisy.  I'm not sure that attack flows well at all as far as a man who wants his reader to understand him goes. Where there aren't grammar flaws your writing is good in that section, but the flaws need to be fixed ( and the character's voice?)

I’ll tell you what real escapism is though, what protects me from the vile reality of Julia’s absence – cocaine. When I arise in the morning: I open my wallet and sift through until I find a $100 note, does he actually have so much that he needs to 'sift'? I prefer to have some class when a I perform my dastardly act. I roll it up, I slide open the bag that contains the white substance that provides the greatest concealment of reality and once again allows me to grasp ‘the sacred particles of joy’. Cocaine particles have a lot to teach me about making sense of my reality. I carefully and concisely spread the powder on my coffee table punct I should name it something else though. I stick one side of the note up my nostril and the other is immersed into the powder, I breathe in and inhale the most wondrous substance. It plays on my nerves, sends me into a wild state of mind. When you’re a cocaine addict life seems more like a series of random hallucinations, literally further description of the series of hallucinations, offer a simile . I love the feeling of cocaine evaporating to my brain that doesn't work. It creates beautifulcomma nostalgic thoughts and sends me into an illusion, reminding me of the times with Julia.

I remember the times when we would run around the park, laughing and her pearly white teeth illuminating joy and love. I'm having a hard time trying to imagine teeth illuminating love. Those words don't work together. I didn’t need any protection from reality then, life was amazing. However, after her passing I needed all the shielding through illusions I could get to protect me from the very abhorrent nature of my reality.

I stay in touch by snorting cocaine, there’s not much more to it. For some of us reality is too harsh, too dark and it cocoons many of us in its web of darkness. Sometimes we just have to wander into the wilderness to grasp what is happening to us – to dream and draw a long bow. I guess my wilderness is the powdery wonder, cocaine.

Illusion at times is one of the great simple pleasures of our life, it’s a seductive hallucination that protects us from the deceitful and caustic reality, and for some a stimulant is required. They are powerful and inviting and indeed when you are faced with a harsh reality that embodies:colon is inappropriate death, hatred and a lust for escape they act as a mechanism to provide a semblance of momentary happiness.

To all, I say.
Unleash the illusions: I hope you do understand me now.

This didn't address the "but never erase it" portion of the prompt.
Nice concept, very nice.
The punctuation errors detracted from the story.
The sort of, 'plot holes' also detracted from the story.
The Michael.L attack stuck out like a sore thumb.
Sometimes you'd use words that were out of context so didn't make full sense.
I'm also not familiar enough with the context to say if that was a deep exploration of the context. so (?)
If that ^^ was fixed, it would be a killlller piece.

[bopbopbop]

I honestly have no idea about context writing. Having a lot of trouble knowing exactly what things to address with the prompts. Attempted piece here, it's probably very bad. Would like some advice as to how to write properly in context

"Peoples responses to conflict will always vary."

Communist Daily, 19th June 1954

Reactionary or Calculated? The McCarthy Regime

"Professor John Stone is a distinguished historian and political activist whose knowledge about previous conflicts has driven him to address the ongoing issue surrounding America today."
Nagasaki. Hiroshima. Two words that ring out in the minds of U.S. citizens as the pinnacle of unadulterated destruction and the height of conflict. Yet America seems not to have learned the lessons of those two events, as the fruits of desperation continue to linger in the form of McCarthyism. For those with power and authority, the general response to conflict is to immediately eliminate the problem. Clearly, Senator John McCarthy is fond of this concept. It has proved successful in the past of course; the Roman Catholic Church managed to stave off men like Galileo Galilei for hundreds of years through the Inquisition. Others with less power will have to make a decision to continue the fight, or to withdraw from it, with the aim of self-preservation. But perhaps that isn't possible for the Communist sympathisers in this era.

Some people choose to viscerally address issues, letting their fear take over, and fear breeds repression. Men in power will often act out of desperation when faced with a scare, in this case, it's a Red Scare. John McCarthy is one of those men, using their authority and influence to persecute those they disagree with. This reaction can often be unjustified, as it clearly is here. The hundreds of people tried before the House Un-American Activities Committee will tell you that they were all targeted with little to no evidence and their rights as citizens were depleted. The "Hollywood Ten", a group of ten men in show business, were infamously persecuted for refusing to speak before the HUAC and were subsequently publicly humiliated and shamed, none of the ten returning to their original jobs or positions following the incident. Conflict of course should be met with resolution, but this resolution should be calcuated and reasoned, never emotionally or irrationally decided. This does not seem to resinate with Senator McCarthy, who continues to use his power to transform this supposed country of freedoms into a nation of oppression and persecution.

Perhaps the best way to "save face" in this situation is to withdraw from the fight, to stop going against the current of McCarthyism and preserve our own integrity. After all, Galileo Galilei had a parallel situation to deal with. The Roman Catholic Church exerted their powerful influence over Europe, oppressing and even burning any who undermined their values. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his theories about the sun. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was created to prevent anyone from reading works the Church disapproved of. Galileo, while optimistic, was also naive. He presented his findings to the Church for approval and the Inquisition snapped up the opportunity to destroy him. He was given a choice to either recant or be killed. After seeing the toture instruments, he chose self-preservation. When faced with an inevitable and gruesome death, most people would do the same, it is human nature to want to protect one's self. Indeed, we live in a different day, but is the situation really that incomparible? Maybe it is in our best interests to sit back and let the McCarthy regime have their power.

But what would that achieve for our rights in the end? We need to take historical examples of those who fought and died for their values and their rights. There are those men and women who stand up and fight in the face of conflict, even when the situation seems futile. Sir Thomas More, chief legal councillor and advisor to King Henry VIII, did exactly what a martyr would be expected to do. Although his relationship with the King was important to him, it was not as important as his religious beliefs. Perhaps this is a message we can all take on board. The 16th century proved a dangerous time to oppose authority, the death penalty was widely employed and there was little tolerance for difference. However, More refused to take the Oath of Supremacy to position the King as the head of the Church of England and refused to let his ties with the Roman Catholic Church diminish. He rose up and denied the King due process with complete disregard for his own safety and status as a lawyer. Eventually, with his refusal to acknowledge the King's divorce from Catherine of Aragon, More was tried for high treason and was executed on 6th July, 1535. A man gave his life, the ultimate sacrifice, for the preservation of his values. There is perhaps nothing more noble.

We are segregated, isolated, condemned for our positions, even those of use who are subtle about it. America's reaction to Communism is visceral, unconsidered and unjustified. Desperation should never be a utilised response to any conflict, but for those in power, it seems to be their only response. There are those of us who will look to preserve ourselves before our values, and while this may not achieve an ultimate goal, it will ensure we are not targeted and persecuted for our values. But for those who have stood against the tide: The Hollywood Ten, Bertolt Brecht, Giordano Bruno, Sir Thomas More; they can be a guiding light in our quest to eradicate the United States of this cancerous McCarthy regime and all the Nazi-like qualities it possesses.

[mikehepro]

Hey Brendren:

Here's my context piece on lies and deceit. An unusual context for yr 11. Could you have a look please, thanks!
Texts:
The help
Lantana
To kill a mocking bird

 Prompt: Lies are necessary to tell in society.

What are lies? Lies are false statements made with deliberate intent to deceive. Lies are being told everyday in our society. In our childhood we lied to our parents about school, at work we lied to our bosses about being late, at home we even lied to our partners over the smallest things. On the other hand, our morals tells us not to lie, deceiving another is always the wrong thing to do, sometimes telling a lie can hurt even more than the truth.  But in reality, lies keeps us and others away from harm, lies also cover up who we really are and sometimes lies had to be told because the truth can't be accepted,We are telling an increasing amount of lies everyday, it's becoming more of a habit to most people and it's becoming a part of our society.

Lies are a good way to protect your self and others in our society. Everyone had been struck in a situation where it's necessary to lie. Who haven't lied in their childhood to avoid getting into trouble? When truth is very messy and uncomfortable, people lies because it's the easy way out. This is evident in the example of Leon in the film Lantana. For Leon, hiding his affair with Jane is the easy way out and he would protect himself, his wife and his kids from a possible divorce. Lying to your family is similar, if you lied to your family saying you're fine when your health condition getting worse, you are protecting them from worrying and stress. Further evidence can be seen in the film The Help, where Celia lies to Johnny about her babies. She can't hold a baby full term and she protects herself and Johnny by telling this lie so it doesn't ruin their relationship. This suggests that lying a good tool to protect ourselves and others.

Sometimes the truth can't be told because it's not accepted in our society. If all politicians told everyone's the truth about where all the money is going, people will be protesting on the streets the next day and the society will fall apart. The society decides what's ok and what's wrong so lies have to occur in our society to protect ourselves. This is highlighted in the film To Kill A Mocking Bird,  where Mayella lies to the court when she kissed a black man. She can't not admit she wants affection because at that time, where white supremacy occurs, kissing a black man or even touching a black man is considered outrageous and would never be accepted. Further evidence can be seen in the film The Help , where Skeeter lies to her friends about Aibileen. At that time,writing a book about a black person is considered a crime by law. Thus we can see many people lies because they want to fit in the society like everybody else, telling the truth can bring you to the "out-group" and create room for prejudice and discrimination.

With an increasing number of lies told everyday, lying have become more and more of a habit to most people. This habit also make lies a part of our society. In our daily life, we lies over the smallest things. When someone asks you "How are you today?." we automatically reply:"i'm good thanks." even when we are feeling unwell or having a bad mood. That's a harmless lie being told. Some research even suggests that we tells an average of of 14 lies each day, our whole society is made up with lies, big and small. This idea is shown in the film, To Kill A Mocking Bird, where Mayella is living in a world of lies, the society as a whole believes that black people are inferior compared to white people, which is why Tom got charged with rape even though he can't use his left hand. This shows that sometimes when the truth is told, people still believe in the lies in our society and rejects the truth. The same idea is evident in the film The Help, where Hilly and her friends believes that black people carry different diseases, that's another lie in the society. The whole society we live in is made up by lies, some harmless, well others can influence the whole society.

But lying is not always good. In some cases telling a lie can actually hurt more then the truth. Lying can protect yourself and others, but if they know your telling a lie and they have to keep guessing the truth, it can become very painful and stressing for a person. They have no idea what they are fighting against so they don't have a choice to keep fighting or just "give up". The film Lantana illustrates this, Sonja is feeling a lot of stress and become anxious about his husband Leon, she doesn't know what she's fighting against and she's desperate for the truth. "It's not that he's having an affair, it's the fact that he might not tell me." outlines how damaging a lie can be compared to the truth, sometimes lying can lead to more pain and suffering.

Lies are necessary to tell in our society because they are a good way of protecting ourselves and others. They can cover up socially unaccepted truths and they had became a part of our society. But lying have a limit, although some lies are harmless, some lies can be very hurtful and create irreparable damage.

[Lolly]

Hey Brendren:

Here's my context piece on lies and deceit. An unusual context for yr 11. Could you have a look please, thanks!
Texts:
The help
Lantana
To kill a mocking bird

Heyhey, I think Brenden is pretty flat out with uni and now there are new mods to help out here on the English board so I hope you don't mind if I mark your essay instead!

 Prompt: Lies are necessary to tell in society.

What are lies? Lies are false statements made with deliberate intent to deceive.Nice try, but I don't think you need a definitive statement. When writing expository it's actually better to immediately start building your concepts in relation to the prompt. Lies are being told everyday in our society. In our childhood we lied to our parents about school, at work we lied to our bosses about being late, at home we even lied to our partners over the smallest things. Ok so you've established that lies are told in society...but you haven't made a value judgement here or answered the prompt or at least, it's only implied. Just because lies are a common aspect of society doesn't make them legit or necessary, so you've got to explore or "expose why that is or isn't the case. Perhaps you could say something like "The obscuring of truth is often necessary for the function of society, as information may be innapropriate to reveal on a public platform. ". Do you see how this works better and explores the topic more deeply? Also try to think in opposites ( or double negatives) eg: lies are technically the obscuring of truth. Can you also see how for expository it's better to use conceptual statements about your topic, rather than specific examples? You can talk about work and school etc, but keep that for your body paragraphs. " On the other hand, our morals tells us not to lie, deceiving another is always the wrong thing to do,hang on this contradicts your previous statement? sometimes telling a lie can hurt even more than the truth. Watch the way you use commas. You're using them in the way you might use semicolons. I'd recommend using conjunctions instead -  "and" or "but" would do ButUsing but at the beginning of a sentence isn't technically incorrect, but it sounds very informal in an essay - "however" and other linking words  are a more sophisticated alternative in reality, liesuse a modifying word " can potentially... keeps us and others away from harm,full stop. lLies  also cover up who we really are can you extend this idea? It really deserves to be in its own sentence if you're going to mention itand I'd recommend starting a new sentence here. remember that a sentence is one contained idea, not two or three.sometimes lies hadve to be told because the truth can't be accepted,full stop no comma. Be careful with your grammar We are telling an increasing amount of lies everyday, it's becoming more of a habit to most people how can you prove this? Try to avoid generalised statements and remember to use modifying words like "could" "can" " often" and it's becoming a part of our society. Use the last sentence of your introduction to address the prompt again. Remember that the prompt isn't stating that lies are becoming a part of society, it's asserting that they are necessary. You job is to answer that question. Also, in expository it's a good idea to signpost your arguments.   

Lies are a good way to protect your the self and others in our society. Everyone had been struck placedin a situation where it's necessary ok good, you're using a word from the prompt, and you're building your concept with your linking sentence. However again you're generalising all of society with "Everyone." Try something more like " Many individuals have been placed in situations where propagating falsehood has led to favourable outcomes. Your job is to explore the issue through observation, rather than to make absolute statements. to lie. Who haven't lied in their childhood to avoid getting into trouble? I'd avoid rhetorical questions for this type of essay When truth is very messyyour language is a bit too casual and uncomfortable, people lies because it's the easy way out. ...and...how does this make it necessary for our existence? This is evident in the example of through depiction of Leon in the film Lantana.For Leon, hiding his affair with Jane is the easy way out and he would protect himself, his wife and his kids from a possible divorce.Expand further on this point with another sentence or two and link it back to the prompt. Similarly, or I would say something like " This notion can be further expanded by the potential scenario... Lying to your family is similar, [if you lied to your family saying you're fine when your health condition getting worse, you are protecting them from worrying and stress.A little too vague... Further evidence can be seen in the film "The Help", where in which Celia lies to Johnny about her babiesexpand in this sentence. I haven't seen this film so I don't know what you mean.. She can't hold a baby full termLike...miscarriage or...? and she protects herself and Johnny by telling this lie so it doesn't ruin their relationship. This suggests that lying isa good tool to protect ourselves and others. I'm not meant to be commenting from a moral perspective, but...well..do you actually believe that lies protect relationships? Like, legit, don't they just come back to haunt you later on and destroy trust in relationships?  I guess I'm trying to ask if you really believe what you're saying here?

Sometimes the truth can't cannot be told because it'sis not accepted in our society. Good topic sentence if you can back with sound discussion, just get rid of the contractions. If all politicians told everyone's who is everyone? Be specific. the truth about where all the money again be more specificis going, people will be protesting on the streets the next day and the society will fall apart. ehhhmmm maybe something more like "If politicians were more upfront about Government expenditure, then there potentially could be more political unrest HANG ON THAT'S NOT EVEN TRUE If the Government was more transparent, wouldn't people trust them more about where taxpayer money is going? Just something to think about. The whole point you're making here is really speculative and isn't anchored to any evidence at all. You realllly need evidence to back it up The society decides what is's okright and what's wrong so lies have to occur in our society to protect ourselves. As an argument, I don't think this works logically This is highlighted in the film To Kill A Mocking Bird,  wherein which Mayella lies to the court when she kissed a black man. through Mayella's denial that she kissed a black man She can't not She cannot(?) admit she wants affection admit this to the court because at that time, where white supremacy occured, kissing a black man or even touching a black man iswas considered outrageous and would never be accepted. [/b] Further evidence can be seen in the film The Help , where in which Skeeter lies to her friends about Aibileen expand . At that time,writing a book about a black person is was. Watch your tenses considered a crime by law. Thus we can see many people lies because they want to fit in the society like everybody else,. tTelling the truth can bring you to the "out-group"can ostracise an individual and create room for prejudice and discrimination.

With an increasing number of lies told everyday, lying have become more and more of a habit to most people. Unless you can back up this statement with evidence, it's bettwe to drop it. Remember, you shouldn't be developing an argument, but rather an observation of human nature This habit also makes lies Try to find synonyms for "lie" or different ways of saying it. Falsehood, deceit, distortion, fabrication, fiction, forgery, fraud? Your Thesaurus is your best friend here.  a part of our society. In our daily life, we lies over the smallest things. When someone asks you "How are you today?." we automatically reply:"I'm good thanks." even when we are feeling unwell or having a bad mood. That's a harmless lie being told. How does this explain why lying is necessary for society? You've gone a bit off topic. Some research even suggests that we tells an average of of 14 lies each day, our whole society is made up with lies, big and small. This idea is shown in the film, To Kill A Mocking Bird, where Mayella is living in a world of lies, the society as a whole believes that black people are inferior compared to white people, which is why Tom got charged with rape even though he can't use his left hand. This shows that sometimes when the truth is told, people still believe in the lies in our society and rejects the truth. The same idea is evident in the film The Help, where Hilly and her friends believes that black people carry different diseases, that's another lie in the society. The whole society we live in is made up by lies, some harmless, well while others can influence the whole society. This paragraph isn't addressing the prompt and it's reading as a bit unfocused.

But lying is not always goodbeneficial to society?. In some casesgood, use this kind of modifying language. telling a lie can actually hurt more thean the truth. Lying can protect yourself and others, but if theywho is "they"? know youryou're telling a lie and they have to keep guessing the truth, it can become very painful and stressing stressfulfor a person. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.They have no idea what they are fighting against so they don't have a choice to keep fighting or just "give up"Who are "they?" I still don't quite understand because you're writing in too general terms. The film Lantana illustrates this, Sonja is feeling a lot of stress and become anxious about his husband Leon, she doesn't know what she's fighting against and she's desperate for the truth. "It's not that he's having an affair, it's the fact that he might not tell me." Good use of quote, the point you're making finally makes sense, but try to get out of the habit of basing the first half of your paragraph on an example you haven't introduced yet. Your reference to another text has to support your contention, rather than the other way around. outlines how damaging a lie can be compared to the truth, full stopLinking word eg: Therefore, sometimes lying can often lead to more pain and suffering.

Lies are necessary to tell in our society because they are a good way of protecting ourselves and others. They can cover up socially unaccepted truths and they had became a part of our society. But lying havehas a limit, I'd delete this part.Remember that your role here isn't to project a point of view, per se, but to analyse the context ( ie: lies and deceit). although some lies are harmless, some lies can be very hurtful and create irreparable damage.

-First of all nice try! There's a lot you still need to work on, but you're in year 11, so you have heaps of time to develop your writing skills!
A few things to target and improve upon:
-Expression. There's no time for beating around the bush. Be specific and succinct. Also, try to write with more formal and analytical language. This will only come with time and practice.
 - Grammar. There are a lot of instances when you use the wrong conjugation or use commas incorrectly. Remember that one sentence frames one idea and not two or three.
- Vocabulary. As mentioned, you need to start building a word bank of synonyms of "lies and deceit". I think this would help your essay writing a lot. I've provided just a few in my marking.
- Stick to the prompt. Quite a lot of your writing doesn't address the prompt in any way. Pick out the key words in the prompt:

"Lies" "tell" "society

and then break down the implications and synonyms of  each words. Ask yourself questions like:
Are lies really necessary for society? Are they actually vital for the society's function? Would society function better if we didn't lie? If so, why/why not? What would be the implications of this? What are some situations when projecting falsehood isn't really needed or even ultimately destructive? Does lying destroy an individual's integrity? Is there a grey area between a lie and a truth? Does information need to be protected for the greater good with falsehood ?

Asking yourself questions like these will help you to develop topic sentences, expand the depth of your analysis, stay on track and focus on answering the prompt.


Edit (Brenden): Just deleted a little (s) that put half the feedback in strikeout .

Edit: Thanks Brenden, I was trying to find it but you beat me to it.

[brenden]

Brill feedback (and thank you oh god)

[Lolly]

I honestly have no idea about context writing. Having a lot of trouble knowing exactly what things to address with the prompts. Attempted piece here, it's probably very bad. Would like some advice as to how to write properly in context
Sorry that I missed this one before, I'll have a go
"Peoples responses to conflict will always vary."

Communist Daily, 19th June 1954

Reactionary or Calculated? The McCarthy Regime

"Professor John Stone is a distinguished historian and political activist whose knowledge about previous conflicts has driven him to address the ongoing issue surrounding America today."
Nagasaki. Hiroshima. Two words that ring out in the minds of U.S. citizens as the pinnacle of unadulterated destruction and the height of conflict. Hey cool, this really captured my attention Yet America seems not to have learned the lessons of those two events, as the fruits of desperation continue to linger in the form of McCarthyism. For those with power and authority, the general response to conflict is to immediately eliminate the problem. Clearly, Senator John McCarthy is fond of this concept. It has proved successful in the past of course; the Roman Catholic Church managed to stave off men like Galileo Galilei for hundreds of years through the Inquisition. Others with less power will have to make a decision to continue the fight, or to withdraw from it, with the aim of self-preservation. But perhaps that isn't possible for the Communist sympathisers in this era.I wouldn't have minded another sentence or two here.Is this an expository piece? If so, you should be writing on more general, conceptual terms in your introduction and topic sentences, rather than bringing in any examples this early. 

Some people choose to viscerally nice vocab but I should inform you that you're splitting an infinitive here Maybe like :
 Some individuals choose to address issues on a visceral level. Visceral. Wow. I really like that word. address issues, letting their fear take over, and fear breeds repression. This clause seems out of place even though the point you're making isn't. I think it's better to keep topic sentences simple. You can introduce complexity later in your paragraph.[/b] Men in power will often act out of desperation when faced withthis is good a scare, in this case, it's a Red Scare The topic sentence and the first one or two sentences should be devoted to building your concept in relation to the prompt, before you talk about specific examples ( like Communism/McCarthyism ) Also, perhaps wording it more like " when threatened by uncertainty/the unknown" would sound better.. John McCarthy is one of those men, using their authority and influence to persecute those they disagree withIs it more than just disagreement? It sounds a bit weak. . This reaction can often be unjustified, as it clearly is herewhere is "here"? make sure you know what you're referring to when you use demonstrative pronouns . The hundreds of people tried before the House Un-American Activities Committee will tell you that they- not needed. This isn't a persuasive piece, rather, your job is to objectively analyse the different situations in your context.  Because of this, it's more appropriate to use formal language were all targeted with little to no evidence and their rights as citizens were depleted.Good example, now link it back to the prompt - how does this convey that "people's responses to conflict will vary"? The "Hollywood Ten", a group of ten men in show business, were infamously persecuted for refusing to speak before the HUAC and were subsequently publicly humiliated and shamed, none of the ten returning to their original jobs or positions following the incident. Conflict of course should be met with resolution, but this resolution should be calcuated and reasoned, never emotionally or irrationally decided.  Hey, just remember that this is a really excellent sentence to wrap up your paragraph, or to use as a topic sentence. It looks a little weird where you've put it here, though, and it has nothing to do with the prompt This does not seem to resionate with Senator McCarthy, who continues to use his power to transform this supposed country of freedoms into a nation of oppression and persecution.You've lost the prompt a bit here. Your gather-in should address it directly.

Perhaps the best way to "save face" in this situation is to withdraw from the fight, to stop going against the current of McCarthyism and preserve our own integrity.This is nice writing, but it's not really what an expository piece is asking for. Remember - conceptual statements should serve as your topic sentences, develop concept further for a few sentences, and then cite examples which back up your observations and reflect the prompt. After all, Galileo Galilei had a parallel situation to deal with. The Roman Catholic Church exerted their powerful influence over Europe, oppressing and even burning any who undermined their values.ideology or belief system would give more scope to what you're saying here, instead of "values." Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his theories about the sun. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was created to prevent anyone from reading works the Church disapproved of. Galileo, while optimistic, was also naive. He presented his findings to the Church for approval and the Inquisition snapped up the opportunity to destroy him. He was given a choice to either recant or be killed. After seeing the torture instruments, he chose self-preservation. This information is super-interesting but you're just lapsing into narrative here without any analysis which ties back to the prompt or your topic sentences. Just be careful [/b] When faced with an inevitable andthe possibility of gruesome death, most manypeopleindividuals would try to protect themselves, despite deviating from their innermost values. ( just a suggestion of how you could phrase it and extend on your idas) do the same, it is human nature to want to protect one's self. Indeed, we live in a different day, but is the situation really that incomparible? Maybe it is in our best interests to sit back and let the McCarthy regime have their power. A nice link but again this isn't what is wanted in expository. I think you could end this para with " Thus, in times of adversity, it is often intrinsic to human nature to want to protect one's self, even if this means overriding our deepest held beliefs.

But what would that achieve for our rights in the end? We need to take historical examples of those who fought and died for their values and their rights. Take this excellent idea, and boil it down to one topic sentence. "However, other individuals may value integrity more than mortality. Remember the crux of the prompt: how individuals react differently to conflict. There are those men and women who stand up and fight in the face of conflict, even when the situation seems futile.Good. Sir Thomas More, chief legal councillor and advisor to King Henry VIII, did exactly what a martyr would be expected to do. Although his relationship with the King was important to him, it was not as important as his religious beliefs.excellentexcellentexcellent but now you need an analytical sentence like " reflective of the notion that in the midst of conflict ideas are more important to some individuals than life itself Perhaps this is a message we can all take on board.not needed The 16th century proved a dangerous time to oppose authority, the death penalty was widely employed and there was little tolerance for difference. However, More refused to take the Oath of Supremacy to position the King as the head of the Church of England and refused to let his ties with the Roman Catholic Church diminish. He rose up and denied the King due process with complete disregard for his own safety and status as a lawyer. Eventually, with his refusal to acknowledge the King's divorce from Catherine of Aragon, More was tried for high treason and was executed on 6th July, 1535. ( Are you a history student...btw?) Try not to lapse into too much narrative without analysis (  I guess this goes for history essays as well, haha) Remember that the prompt is the focus of the essay and the examples all have to point back to it. In expository the abstract concepts you raise about your particular context are more important than the evidence you provide.  A man gave his life, the ultimate sacrifice, for the preservation of his values. There is perhaps nothing more noble.Really inspirational, and if this was an article in a magazine I'd give this big ticks but the structure is pretty rigid when it comes to expository and as said before you need to end your paragraph with a conceptual statement

We are segregated, isolated, condemned for our positions, even those of use who are subtle about it. Againagain, general statement addressing prompt in an all encompassing way is what is needed here America's reaction to Communism is visceral, unconsidered and unjustified. Don't state your opinion, just your observation in abstract terms ( ie: don't talk about your examples/evidence in the conclusion) Desperation should never be a utilised response to any conflict, but for those in power, it seems to be their only response.This is getting closer to what they want, but turn this around and say " Desperation is often a response to conflict, particularly for those in positions of power." See how that's more objective and analytical, rather than opinionated ( I'm sorry. I like having opinions too, but this is the criteria VCAA stipulates for expository . How sad. There are those of us There are individuals who will look to preserve ourselves before our values at the greatest of costs, and while this may not achieve an ultimate goal, it will ensure we are not targeted and persecuted for our values. But for those who have stood against the tide: The Hollywood Ten, Bertolt Brecht, Giordano Bruno, Sir Thomas More; they can be a guiding light in our quest to eradicate the United States of this cancerous McCarthy regime and all the Nazi-like qualities it possesses.Don't need this, even though it sums up what you're saying quite well, it doesn't fit the cookie cutter structure espoused by VCAA Try saying something like " Ultimately, through an individual's response to conflict, their true character emerges, forged through adversity. A powerful quote that is pertinent to the prompt will end your essay on a good note ( maybe you could source it from one of the people you just mentioned?)

Remember:
- the ideas in the prompt are your main focus and your evidence is only there to back up your prompt.
 - As such you have to speak on abstract terms for the most part of your essay.
 - The intro has to be entirely conceptual.
 - The body paragraphs have to have topic sentences that are also abstract. You then have to spend a few sentences developing your idea before launching into a concrete example.  This is as opposed to Text response when you usually have only one linking sentence and at the most two.
 - You need to remember to analyse rather than just stating fact, and in doing so, you have to draw it back to the prompt. The prompt is there to help you stay focused. So state concrete example> analyse significance> connect to prompt.
 - Round off paragraphs with a bigger idea than your topic sentence, since you've spent the entire paragraph building its complexity
 
Overall:
- Your writing has feeling and intelligence ( please be proud of this!) although there are still a few tiny tiny grammatical blips and unnecessary phrases.
 -  I hope that VCE English doesn't crush your creative flair but the way expository is written has specific criteria, which you've only followed loosely.
 - I'm certain that you'll be able to get this right after a few practices.
 
 

[mikehepro]

lollymatron your a legend, thanks for your brillant feedback and the amount of time and effort you put into it. It's people like you that make Atarnotes such a great community. Thank you once again.
Brendren, i will get better mate, i know i'm horrible ahahha. English is my worst subject atm. Expect a lot of those terrible essays from me. Thanks

[silverpixeli]

Hey guys,

This is my second expository piece ever! Still waiting for teacher feedback on my first, so hopefully I'm doing this right. Any feedback would be appreciated, on both my writing/expression in general and on my ideas and their development. Without further ado,

“CONFLICTS INVOLVE A CLASH OF IDEAS, INTERESTS AND EXPECTATIONS”

  Mason Cooley once said that “The passions are the same in every conflict, large or small”. The passions in a conflict - or the driving forces that cause the conflict - are the result of differences in expectations, interests and beliefs. These differences can lead to animosity between parties, causing conflict. Najaf Mazari's biography The Rugmaker of Mazar-e-sharif deals with Najaf's childhood in war-torn Afghanistan, his exodus to Australia and time in a detention centre and the beginnings of his new life in a new land; very different from his own. Despite his vast experience, differences as mentioned above cause conflict throughout Najaf's journey, of varied scale. This is evidence that the fundamental passions that lead to the generation of all conflict are independent of the scale of the conflict, and perhaps that conflict is an inherent part of human nature.

  Misunderstandings can generate conflict; as a clash between differing expectations can lead to animosity. Misunderstandings are common in human relations due to failure of communication and the different perspectives all parties have of a situation. The Rugmaker of Mazar-e-sharif deals with the results of clashing expectations on a small scale. Najaf is expected by his elder brothers to work in a blacksmith's workshop, but he choses to seek a less monotonous job and becomes a rug maker. Najaf's desires are not communicated effectively to his brothers, and Abdul Ali ends up boxing Najaf's ears for his disobedience. Mazari's biography also illustrates larger scale conflicts including the evident culture clash between refugees and Australian people. Australians and Middle Eastern people have vastly differing expectations on what is socially acceptable and proper. The refugees held in Woomera in the time of Najaf Mazari's detention are shown to be confused by the seemingly alien Australian culture. On the other side, the Australian people live under fear of being taken over by immigrants who wear 'strange clothes' and practice a different religion. The resultant culture clash highlights differing expectations as a key cause of conflict.

  Another leading cause of conflict is a clash of interests. Greed can lead individuals to put their own interests as more important than those of anyone else, which can obviously cause conflict. Najaf himself explains an exemplary conflict resulting in Woomera from just such a difference of interests. Najaf describes the possible 'food war' crisis that is instigated from an unbalanced serving of food in the mess hall, sparking a brawl between the many ethnic groups present. A more serious case of interest clash is the situation in Afghanistan. The many tribal groups collectively referred to as the Mujahedin are, in Najaf's time, in joint conflict with an outside enemy. In the event that this enemy is defeated, Najaf postulates that a civil war would eventuate over leadership of the country. The cause is that every tribal chieftain has the responsibility for looking after his own tribe, hence a clash of interests can be seen to cause a great conflict.

  A final factor in the generation of conflict is ideas. Ideas may centre around philosophy, morality, religion or politics, but regardless of its focus an idea can be seen to cause conflicts of both large and small scale. A relevant instance of such a conflict can be seen in the political situation of a democratic nation such as Australia. The political scene in our country is often fiery and tense, especially in the wake of an election. As a democratic process is firmly in place, however, these conflicts are unlikely to cause violence or other large scale impacts. The fight is confined to subtle propaganda and idealistic election promises. On a much larger scale, there have been many religious wars throughout history. From the fight raging between the Taliban and today's world for sharia law and islamic fundamentalism to the crusades headed by the 11th century christians against muslims, pagans and heretics. The leading causes for both of these wars - differences in ideas - illustrates that clash of ideology is a key cause of large conflicts as well as small ones.

  It can be seen that the driving forces; the passions behind many large and small conflicts include mainly ideas, expectations and interests. It has been shown that these factors are the causes of conflicts of every scale; from family disputes in the case of Najaf's career choice to religious wars such as that of the Taliban. As every individual is inherently different from every other, it is likely that these differences will often cause clashes of opinion, misunderstandings or conflict of interests. As a result, it is reasonable to suggest that where humans are concerned there may always be reason for conflict of some form.

779 words (according to OpenOffice, so )