Hi there, welcome to ATAR Notes!
I've made some annotations to your essay below; please don't feel bad about all the red text - I've just tried to explain everything in a lot of detail so it makes sense! But let me know if you have questions about anything I've written here!
Essay Comments
Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is a novella that communicates the criticism of imperialist ideology through Conrad’s use of the linguistic textual features such as the destruction of dichotomies and metaphors. This is a good start, but you've got A LOT happening in this first sentence. It's probably much easier to introduce the text and its core message in its own sentence, and the expand on how Conrad accomplishes this. I'd end this opening line at "...communicates a criticism of imperialist ideology." and then start the next sentence with "Throughout the text, Conrad highlights/emphasises/explores..." At the moment, linking the key criticisms of the text highly specific linguistic features feels a bit too cluttered and sudden. It's like a baking recipe that starts with "These muffins are beautifully fluffy and fruity, so they're perfect for a summer's day... and also they contain baking soda. We don't need to know that last part until much later in the essay, so save the literary devices (or ingredients 
) for your body paragraphs where analysing them can earn you marks! Similarly, Brian Shaffer is correct to disagree with the interpretation that imperialist civilisation is challenged What interpretation are you talking about here? Is this the dominant interpretation of the text, and is Brian Shaffer a critic who disagrees with this reading? Again, it feels like you're jumping in the deep end with lots of specifics - what you're saying is probably right, but it's a little bit hard to follow! as he suggests that Conrad reverses the metaphors to invoke the cliché dichotomies to distinguish civilisation from the jungle. Shaffer denotes that the construction of Kurtz as a static character enables the contemporanous audiences to align his Are you talking about Kurtz or Conrad here? characterisation as a metonym of Europe, as well as Best to start a new sentence here - each of these ideas is big enough to warrant its own separate sentence! e.g. Furthermore, Shaffer also explores how Conrad blurs the distinctions through the suggestion of how Conrad’s inversion and destruction of the cliché dichotomies between the light and darkness of imperialist ideology. Okay, it sounds like you have a really nuanced understanding of the text, but it's getting lost a bit in the structure. What I would recommend is breaking this down so you just have a simple formula to follow (and you can deviate from this as you get more and more practice!)
1. Introduce the text and author's name, and the text's overarching message. Maybe also mention the genre, time period, or any relevant background information. The first half of your first sentence does this really well!
2. Expand on the authorial intent i.e. what is Conrad trying to say? In this case, what is he saying about imperialist ideologies? This is the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE INTRO, but that's kind of missing at the moment because you jump straight into talking about another critic's opinion, so your marker can't tell if you understand this.
3. Introduce a literary critic or piece of criticism. Who is Brian Shaffer, and is there a particular essay or book about HOD that you're referring to here? Yes, your English teacher probably knows what you're talking about, but the external examiner at the end of the year might not, so it's best to properly introduce your references and ideas.
Shaffer enuciates 'enunciates' probably isn't the best word here, since it literally means sounding something out, as opposed to words like 'argues', 'elucidates', 'expresses' etc. Definitely keep trying to expand your vocabulary, and just keep a list of words that are good to use in this context. "The author verbs..." sentences are SUPER important, so I always recommend making a vocab list with synonyms like 'contends,' 'asserts,' 'condones.' Then, you can keep the list next to you when you write practice essays to help you improve gradually! that through Conrad’s reversal of the metaphors used to construct Kurtz as a static character, the distinction between civilisation and the jungle has been blurred Some repetition with the phrasing you've used in the intro here; can you reqord this? to reveal the veneer of imperialist ideology. Shaffer proffers that Conrad “revers[es] the metaphors used to distinguish civilisation from the jungle this is also just saying the same thing with the same words, so it'd be much better to paraphrase this yourself [by] illustrating the ways in which language is used to lie about and obfuscate reality” through the characterisation of Kurtz as a metonym of Europe. For example, Shagger communicates the exaggeration within Conrad’s suggestion Using literary criticism is important, but it seems like you're focusing way more on what Shaffer says as opposed to what is in the novel. Was this just part of the task criteria? If not, I'd say you'd be better off trying to write the first ~half of your paragraph about what Conrad says through the text, and THEN talk about how Shaffer critiques this. of how “all [of] Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz.” Is this a quote from Shaffer or the novel? Conrad uses the hyperbole of “all [of] Europe” to blur and exaggerate the beliefs and values of Eurocentric society, to suggest that their social construct derives from greed and selfishness, rather than unity and compassion. EXCELLENT!! THIS IS REALLY GOOD ANALYSIS!! MORE OF THIS!! Through this interpretation, contemporaneous audiences are able to recognise how through the construction of the character, Conrad depersonalises Kurtz to highlight the immorality and prejudice of the imperialist ideology of civilisation. This needs more unpacking. It also doesn't seem to build off of the previous point. To simplify this sentence, you're saying that Conrad constructs Kurtz in a way that lets him highlight the bad aspects of imperialism. There IS a connection between this idea and the previous one, but it's not very clear at the moment. **see end comments about wording!** This can be seen through Conrad’s characterisation of how Kurtz has “magnificent eloquence” but has a “heart” of barren darkness.” Through the connotations of “barren” readers can assume that Kurtz has minimal character development in the novella as the landscape of his heart is dead and unable to be revived. Good! I like the analysis of connotations here! 
Similarly, through the juxtaposition in the construction of his character, the readers can assume you've used this phrase in the previous sentence already - this is another very common sentence structure that you'll need to use a lot, so try to come up with a list of alternatives to create some variety (e.g. 'readers infer' or 'it is made clear to readers that' or 'the audience observes' etc.) that although Kurtz is perceived to be the archetype of imperialist ideology through his undeniable knowledge, would be good to provide evidence of this! You've got a great interpretation here, but you can't take for granted that your assessor knows what you're talking about. You have to explain your ideas in order to get marks for them! it is undermined by the brutality and ruthlessness of his inner demeanour. Through the emphasis of how Kurtz was constructed solely on the beliefs and attitudes of Europe, contemporaneous audiences can understand Again, it seems like you're repeating these phrases, so start listing some other options! how the lack of exposure to different cultures highlight the staticity This is a really interesting idea, but you haven't provided enough evidence for it! How do we know Kurtz is static? Can you provide us with a quote or plot point that demonstrates how he is not open to change? of his character. Similarly, Shaffer contends that Conrad uses Kurtz as a construct to “emphasise the pervasive vagueness, obscurity and uncertainty of all knowledge” which, again emphasises how the distinction between the static and the dynamic characterisation of Kurtz is obfuscated through the construction of Kurtz as a metonym of Europe It's rarely a good idea to point out how two examples are proving the same point, as it can make your essay feel repetitive. rather than an individual. Through the depersonalisation of Kurtz as a character, Shaffer comments on how “any essential distinction between civilisation and the jungle is blurred nearly beyond recognition” as although Kurtz was positioned to be the archetype of imperialist civilisation, his mere characteristics of staticity blurs the distinction between whether Kurtz aligns with civilisation or the jungle. Okay, I'm a bit confused as to what your argument is here. Are you saying Kurts IS a representation of the flaws of imperialism? Or that he's actually a representation of both civilised and "uncivilised" cultures and their flaws? **see end comments about developing a thesis** Therefore, Shaffer’s contention that Conrad’s characterisation of Kurtz “blur[s ] the realms” of civilisation and uncivilisation enable the interpretation that the veneer-like quality of imperialist civilisation was challenged in Heart of Darkness is inaccurate. I think you should try and take a more nuanced approach than just saying Shaffer's contention is straight-up WRONG, haha! (Correct me if I've misinterpreted this!) It's perfectly fine to think a critic's views are flawed, or incomplete, or even incorrect, but you don't want to explicitly say this in an essay, because it implies you think there are "correct" and "incorrect" interpretations, but QCAA want you to acknowledge that texts are complex and can be interpreted in multiple ways! (see below for more on this)
Overall, there are some really good bits and pieces in here, and I can tell you must have worked really hard on this! There are two main things that I think would help you instantly boost your mark, and this might even help you write quicker/easier too!
Firstly,
your thesis: this is the most important part of your essay, and this should be your starting point. And to answer your question about responding to the prompt, yep, it's the job of your thesis to answer the question or address the statement that you've been given. So let's say the topic was as simple as "Discuss the portrayal of imperialist ideology in
HOD". Here's what I'd recommend:
1. What are the key words in the essay question? (This is super easy for this prompt! = imperialist ideology)
2. What is the author saying about these key words? (What is Conrad saying about imperialist ideology? BE SPECIFIC HERE - don't just say 'it's bad' - think about what Conrad is critiquing, and what kinds of negative effects of imperialist thought he portrays in the text)
3. How does the author convey this message? (Where in the text do we see evidence of this idea? List as many different points as you can think of)
Answering the first two questions will allow you to craft a thesis... like:
In Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad depicts the damaging consequences of imperialist ideology and highlights how such philosophies are a danger to the colonialist individuals who believe in them and the colonised cultures they affect.(This is by no means the only option - you could have hundreds of different theses in response to this prompt)
Answering the third question will help you think of talking points for your body paragraphs, and will hopefully be pretty easy once you have a clear thesis as your focus.
Then, you should explicitly state your thesis in your introduction, and then return to it at the starts and ends of your body paragraphs (making sure you paraphrase it so you're not repeating yourself too much!)
When you're writing your next essay, try to start with this central idea and then build your essay around it, as that will give you a much clearer sense of where to go, and it'll also be much clearer for your marker to read.
The second thing is the
wording, or the "sentence construction and language choices" that your marker mentioned. This is a little bit trickier to fix overnight, but for starters:
remember that the assessors care WAY more about CLARITY than COMPLEXITY. It seems like you've tried to use more sophisticated words to convey your points, and some of them work really well, but other times it's hard to work out what you're trying to say.
Don't stress, this is a very common problem, and you've got heaps of time to work on it! But the best thing you can do is don't worry about trying to sound all fancy and English-y and just concentrate on getting your ideas across, even if you think it sounds simplistic. A sentence like 'Conrad shows readers Kurtz's character flaws in order to show the downsides of power and imperialism' is better than 'Conrad explicitly manifests the justaposition of Kurtz's persona deficiencies with his castigation of imperialist dogma' - no one wants to read a sentence like that; certianly not an assessor who is meant to give you a mark for whatever you're trying to say!
As I've mentioned in the essay comments, it'd be a great idea to keep a list of good vocabulary by your side as you write, or use a thesaurus to expand your vocabulary, but that shouldn't be your primary focus right now, because what the assessors care about, in order, are:
1. Is the essay RELEVANT TO THE PROMPT?
2. Are the IDEAS in the essay clear and sophisticated?
3. Is the WRITING good?You should have your priorities in the same order! Don't worry about using fancy words until you know you can write a RELEVANT essay with CLEAR ideas - that's the most important thing, as these factors can sway your mark from a 10/25 to a 23/25. Having a really good writing style might earn you an extra mark or two, but it's not going to save your essay if the ideas aren't relevant or clear.
The key question was about the imperialist ideology in Heart of Darkness. Can you also give me advice to how I can develop a thesis that is responsive to the key question, as well as how I can use a wider variety of evidence in an unseen exam?
I've spoken about theses above, but in terms of using evidence: try to create an 'evidence bank' of quotes, literary devices, and textual features, and add to it as you study the text. Then get as much information as you can from your teacher, friends, online resources, study guides - anything! Then, what I found AMAZINGLY helpful was to
group examples by theme (so for HOD for example, have a Word doc with lists of evidence about power, colonialism, communication, culture, corruption, truth, etc.) That way, when you get an unseen essay topic about 'corruption' (or a related theme like 'greed') you can mentally recall everything that you had grouped under that heading in your notes.
Beyond that, standard memorisation tips like rewriting quotes or reading and rereading them a tonne will also help. I know some students will also make audio recordings of quotes and then play them on the bus or while they fall asleep! (You don't have to get that intense, lol) But think about how you learn best: by visuall reading quotes? By physically writing them yourself? By hearing them spoken? And do whatever works for you!
Please let me know if you have questions about anything I've said here. I hope you're enjoying English so far, and keen to hear how this year goes for you!
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Analytical Essay in Exam Conditions (Read 868 times)