VCE English Question Thread

[Buddster]

Anyone recommend any good workbooks for english next year? E.g. Checkpoints

as far as I know there isn't many workbooks as English is really only essay writing. There's some really great study material out there though. For your text analysis defs grab a study guide companion for your novel, like MetaMaus for Maus or whatever

[hola]

Hi all,

I have a question about how I should approach this Medea prompt: "Medea is the true victim of Euphrides' play". Do you agree?

My contention is "Medea is a victim but not the only one of the play". My body paragraphs will each discuss why Medea, Jason and the children are victims.

My questions are:
- Do I address the prompt sufficiently? I'm a bit iffy about the "true" part since my discussion is based solely on one side of the story where the characters are victims, completely disregarding their actions that could make them seem more like villans than victims.
- Should I change the topics of my body paragraphs? I know it's generally advised to steer away from character-based paragraphs, but I feel like it would be okay in this case since the prompt itself is character based.
- If I should change my topics, would the following be okay:

• Medea is a victim but she has victims of her own
• All characters suffer at the hands of others (should I make this more specific by talking about the innocence of some characters?)
• All characters fall prey to societal pressures

Thanks in advance for all help

[HopefulLawStudent]

Hi all,

I have a question about how I should approach this Medea prompt: "Medea is the true victim of Euphrides' play". Do you agree?

My contention is "Medea is a victim but not the only one of the play". My body paragraphs will each discuss why Medea, Jason and the children are victims.

My questions are:
- Do I address the prompt sufficiently? I'm a bit iffy about the "true" part since my discussion is based solely on one side of the story where the characters are victims, completely disregarding their actions that could make them seem more like villans than victims.
- Should I change the topics of my body paragraphs? I know it's generally advised to steer away from character-based paragraphs, but I feel like it would be okay in this case since the prompt itself is character based.
- If I should change my topics, would the following be okay:

• Medea is a victim but she has victims of her own
• All characters suffer at the hands of others (should I make this more specific by talking about the innocence of some characters?)
• All characters fall prey to societal pressures

Thanks in advance for all help

I'm a little biased but I tend to not like the whole character by character paragraph breakdown so much which is what you seem to be gearing towards. However, your BP breakdown would probably fine (like my school actively encouraged the use of a character by character breakdown fr the simple reason of it was easier); personally, I'd want to throw in something about whether Medea really is a victim instead of basing your discussion "solely on the side of the story where the characters are victims". I mean there's nothing there to say that you can't talk about their actions.

I'm a bigger fan of the thematic or idea based paragraphs largely because I personally feel that it allows for a more cohesive and structured argument (for me personally, character based paras always ended in 3 - 4 paragraphs where I just reiterated the same thing idea over again whereas thematic based paras allowed for more exploration of the prompt).

I prefer what you're trying to achieve via the second prompt breakdown:

Medea is a victim but she has victims of her own
All characters suffer at the hands of others (should I make this more specific by talking about the innocence of some characters? Anything relevant is free game and can be explored in your response.)
All characters fall prey to societal pressures So? The connection between this idea and the prompt needs to be clarified so that no one can turn around and argue that it's irrelevant to the prompt.

Your questions are quite legitimate concerns, however, and it's so good that you're asking these questions now. Tbh I don't think I started asking these questions until like midyear so good on you!

If you feel any more questions, please feel free to ask.

[hola]

I'm a little biased but I tend to not like the whole character by character paragraph breakdown so much which is what you seem to be gearing towards. However, your BP breakdown would probably fine (like my school actively encouraged the use of a character by character breakdown fr the simple reason of it was easier); personally, I'd want to throw in something about whether Medea really is a victim instead of basing your discussion "solely on the side of the story where the characters are victims". I mean there's nothing there to say that you can't talk about their actions.

I'm a bigger fan of the thematic or idea based paragraphs largely because I personally feel that it allows for a more cohesive and structured argument (for me personally, character based paras always ended in 3 - 4 paragraphs where I just reiterated the same thing idea over again whereas thematic based paras allowed for more exploration of the prompt).

I prefer what you're trying to achieve via the second prompt breakdown:

Your questions are quite legitimate concerns, however, and it's so good that you're asking these questions now. Tbh I don't think I started asking these questions until like midyear so good on you!

If you feel any more questions, please feel free to ask.

Hey HLS,

Thanks for the help. I redid my plan and is it okay if you look over it (and answer some questions?);

Contention: Euphrides is ambiguous in which character he suggests is the victim. (Is this okay? Or would something like "Within Medea, Euphrides explores the ideas of being a victim, and innocence".)

Argument 1:All characters suffer to some extent at the hands of others.
- For this argument, I would talk about how Medea suffers due to Jason's betrayal, but also due to her own extreme emotions (leading to moral repercussions). I would then talk about how Jason suffers due to the stuff expected of him (social pressures).

Argument 2: All characters however aren't completely innocent.
- Is this a strong argument? It's just that I could already come up with a counter argument for it, and that is the children; they're completely innocent.
- For this paragraph, I would essentially discuss the bad things the characters did, making them more villainous than victims.

- Would just these 2 body paragraphs suffice for an essay?

Thanks for all help. 

[HopefulLawStudent]

Hey HLS,

Thanks for the help. I redid my plan and is it okay if you look over it (and answer some questions?); I'll try -- if I mess up, fingers crossed Lauren or someone more knowledgeable pulls me up on it. :p

Contention: Euphrides is ambiguous in which character he suggests is the victim. (Is this okay? Or would something like "Within Medea, Euphrides explores the ideas of being a victim, and innocence"I quite like the original contention but you have to be careful to remain within the confines of the topic with your contention. Like I feel like the second one "Within Medea..." doesn't as clearly address the topic?.)

Argument 1:All characters suffer to some extent at the hands of others.
- For this argument, I would talk about how Medea suffers due to Jason's betrayal, but also due to her own extreme emotions (leading to moral repercussions). I would then talk about how Jason suffers due to the stuff expected of him (social pressures).

Argument 2: All characters however aren't completely innocent.
- Is this a strong argument? It's just that I could already come up with a counter argument for it, and that is the children; they're completely innocent. Would probs be stronger if you ditched the absolute "All characters". "Some characters" would probs work better considering that you are correct in that the children are completely innocent. -- Perhaps the children being innocent could form a third paragraph?
- For this paragraph, I would essentially discuss the bad things the characters did, making them more villainous than victims.

- Would just these 2 body paragraphs suffice for an essay? Probably not. 3 BP's is preferred and typically considered the min number of paragraphs though ofc 2 good body paragraphs is better than 2 good paragraphs and 1 dodgy paragraphs or worse, 3 dodgy paragraphs.

Thanks for all help. 

Please please please remember the topic: Medea is the true victim of Euphrides' play. As Medea is directly referred to, she needs to form a key aspect of your argument (though obviously, you must include other characters in your discussion!!)

From memory, when I did this my prompt breakdown looked something like this:

Spoiler

1. Medea is, to some extent, a victim due to the actions of those around her.
2. However, her vengeful actions preclude us from casting her as the "true victim"
3. Similarly, there are characters in the play that are not purely "villains" or "victims" (Jason, Glauce's father whose name I can't remember)
4. Ultimately, it is Medea's sons who are the "true" victims due to their innocence blah blah blah.

See how ^ is more Medea centric whilst still incorporating discussion of other characters? Your plan is good but it could be improved through a stronger emphasis on Medea due to the direct reference to Medea in the prompt.

(Sharing this with you because I know for me personally, it always helped to see how other people would have approached the topic and explanations never *really* worked for me unless they were supplemented with an example.    )

[hola]

Please please please remember the topic: Medea is the true victim of Euphrides' play. As Medea is directly referred to, she needs to form a key aspect of your argument (though obviously, you must include other characters in your discussion!!)

From memory, when I did this my prompt breakdown looked something like this:

Spoiler

1. Medea is, to some extent, a victim due to the actions of those around her.
2. However, her vengeful actions preclude us from casting her as the "true victim"
3. Similarly, there are characters in the play that are not purely "villains" or "victims" (Jason, Glauce's father whose name I can't remember)
4. Ultimately, it is Medea's sons who are the "true" victims due to their innocence blah blah blah.

See how ^ is more Medea centric whilst still incorporating discussion of other characters? Your plan is good but it could be improved through a stronger emphasis on Medea due to the direct reference to Medea in the prompt.

(Sharing this with you because I know for me personally, it always helped to see how other people would have approached the topic and explanations never *really* worked for me unless they were supplemented with an example.    )

Hey HLS,

Thanks for the quick reply and help. I have some more questions (hehe sorry  ):
- Does my contention has to be centred around Medea?
- Is is okay to have paragraphs based solely on one character (like your 1st one) and bring in discussion about other characters, but link them back to that one character?
- In text response, what does it mean by "views and values"? In Medea, does it means something like "Athenian audience would see Medea's actions as..." or "A modern audience would condemn...".
- To score high, I've been told that you had to discuss the "implications of the topic". Is that like what the author is saying about the topic? (If not too much of a hassle, could you give an example for this topic?)

Thanks for all help. 

[HopefulLawStudent]

Hey HLS,

Thanks for the quick reply and help. I have some more questions (hehe sorry  ): Welcomes. Tbh Im not doing anything w my time anyway so at least this way someone is hopefully gaining something from my free time that would have otherwise been wasted.
- Does my contention has to be centred around Medea? I think so largely due to the nature of the prompt. However, Medea can't be the only aspect of your argument, you still have to incorporate discussion re: other characters.
- Is is okay to have paragraphs based solely on one character (like your 1st one) and bring in discussion about other characters, but link them back to that one character? Yep. I quite liked to do this (esp for prompts like this) largely because I found that linking them like that made everything feel more cohesive. And my teacher never seemed to complain about it so I guess it's fine?
- In text response, what does it mean by "views and values"? In Medea, does it means something like "Athenian audience would see Medea's actions as..." or "A modern audience would condemn...". Ugh. My Literature teacher did a full 45 minute class on views and values and the nuanced differences between the two and I could never quite grasp onto what it meant; I still can't confidently answer that question from a Literature standpoint. In English however, I think view and values are just treated sorta like "themes" (though from memory, using the word "themes"  is blasphemy) or like the main "ideas".

Like for Medea, I think views and values would be stuff pertaining to:
- Reason v. Passion
- "The Middle Way"
- Role of women
- Family
- Role of men

(Haven't touched Medea since like mid Term 1 though so I'm a big vague on the v&v from Medea.)

- To score high, I've been told that you had to discuss the "implications of the topic". Is that like what the author is saying about the topic? (If not too much of a hassle, could you give an example for this topic?) So implications is looking at stuff like "if this is true, then what?". Basically its what the prompt is suggesting and it's the sort of stuff that you can structure your arguments around. I know a bunch of my friends see implications as statements but for some reason my brain always jumps towards a bunch of questions. 

Example:

"In AAE, unmarried women are unhappy." (Yes, this was an actual prompt that was thrown at me as a "what if I get this??" the day before the exam -- I freaked out horribly about it and as such this is the only AAE prompt I can remember. :p)

Implications: these women are unhappy because they are unmarried/due to their relationships --> relationships and female happiness are interconnected --> this only applies to women? --> Are the men unhappy? --> are relationships and male happiness interconnected? --> is this the only factor that affects the happiness of these women?

Or like for this prompt:

Medea is the true victim of Euripides'  play.

Implications: Medea is a true victim --> Do we always see her as a victim? --> Do we ever see her as a villain? --> Why do we see her as a victim/villain --> Is she the only character we see as a victim? --> Is there someone that is a truer victim than her?



Thanks for all help.

[hola]

Question, how would I structure my arguments around the implications of the Medea prompt?

[HopefulLawStudent]

Question, how would I structure my arguments around the implications of the Medea prompt?

I tend to do one implication/question per paragraph because the implications I tended to find were typically pretty general with like one overarching idea/contention.

[deStudent]

Is it normal when reading a book for the first time that you don't full understand what's going on? Sometimes when I read a page and then go on to the next, I can't even remember what I just read??

[HopefulLawStudent]

Is it normal when reading a book for the first time that you don't full understand what's going on? Sometimes when I read a page and then go on to the next, I can't even remember what I just read??

What book are you reading? This does happen sometimes from my personal experience (looking atchu Wuthering Heights -- still haven't finished the entire book yet lol -- almost done though!!). It also sometimes happens due to the structure of the text or complexities in the author's writing style. I find that the easiest way to combat this is to first do a quick wikipedia or cliffsnotes search of the general plot if you don't mind the spoilers and then go back and read it; things make a whole lot more sense when you have some background to go with it. Alternatively, you can do what my best friend does and read it twice, the first time being a cursory "wtf am I reading" read and the second time being a "ohhhh so this is what was happening" read.

[deStudent]

What book are you reading? This does happen sometimes from my personal experience (looking atchu Wuthering Heights -- still haven't finished the entire book yet lol -- almost done though!!). It also sometimes happens due to the structure of the text or complexities in the author's writing style. I find that the easiest way to combat this is to first do a quick wikipedia or cliffsnotes search of the general plot if you don't mind the spoilers and then go back and read it; things make a whole lot more sense when you have some background to go with it. Alternatively, you can do what my best friend does and read it twice, the first time being a cursory "wtf am I reading" read and the second time being a "ohhhh so this is what was happening" read.

Thanks. Yeah, I usually look over the plot/summaries on those websites, I did this Medea which worked but then again Medea was pretty short.

This problem is occurring when reading a new book called 'The Golden Age' by Joan London. There isn't much resources on this since it's fairly new and by an Australian author.

[Coffee]

Thanks. Yeah, I usually look over the plot/summaries on those websites, I did this Medea which worked but then again Medea was pretty short.

This problem is occurring when reading a new book called 'The Golden Age' by Joan London. There isn't much resources on this since it's fairly new and by an Australian author.

Have you had a look at this PDF for The Golden Age? http://static.booktopia.com.au/pdf/9780857989000-1.pdf It's a brief overview which you might find helpful. Particularly, I think it would be good for you to have a think about the reading questions to help you think critically about the book.

[HopefulLawStudent]

Thanks. Yeah, I usually look over the plot/summaries on those websites, I did this Medea which worked but then again Medea was pretty short.

This problem is occurring when reading a new book called 'The Golden Age' by Joan London. There isn't much resources on this since it's fairly new and by an Australian author.

I'd recommend reading reviews for new books for which there tend to be less resources.

For example:
https://www.australianbookreview.com.au/abr-online/current-issue/122-september-2014-no-364/2103-joan-london-s-new-novel
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/november/1414760400/brenda-walker/golden-age-joan-london
http://sydneyreviewofbooks.com/golden-age-joan-london/

Largely because you're just looking for some background/context to enable you to better understand what's going on in the text.

Good luck!

[Gogo14]

hey guys just some qs with medea:
1. at teh end of the book she rides on some dragon chariot. In some resources, it says that the sun god or something gave her the chariots (can't remember) but in the text, is this true? Cant find any references in my text
2. is the chorus actual characters or is it just like a narrator's voice?