VCE English Question Thread

[heids]

hello 
currently studying 'Ransom' and 'Invictus'.
my q. is Compare the ways in which ‘Ransom’ and ‘Invictus’ highlight the futility of revenge.
just seeking some help how to spit the paragraphs up. i was thinking one of Invictus and another on Ransom. Just wondering what to do for the other one.
Thanks
Any help is much appreciated 

This post deals with this in detail, worth a thorough read.

[arlynl99]

This post deals with this in detail, worth a thorough read.

thanks heaps very helpful and applicable

i think comparison essays are best to compare continually throughout the essay, over against doing separate paragraphs on each. (depending on the teacher of course, as some prefer it that way)

well i would be inclined to suggest;
para1- the uselessness of revenge, whilst revenge is self-serving it isnt satisfying but instead creates more damage, grief, sorrow, remorse within the revengeful character
para 2- the vicious ongoing downward spiral of revenge, it doesnt enhance lives, but rather one individual's actions can cause grief to entire groups/society's. it is fruitless and pointless. revenge only breaks down relationships rather than enhancing them.
para 3- reconciliation and humanity is a much greater, more honourable, respectful answer or response to grief and sorrow
whilst readers may feel Priam and Mandela could be somewhat justified in seeking revenge they show a more honourable approach. and despite reproach (from hecuba/the princes and Mandela's family and security team) the leaders do what is best for their nation/tribe/groups rather than satisfy personal feelings, which ultimately brings them peace, happiness, respect, legacy

just suggestions.. so dont feel like you have to go with that.! 
 

 
ok thanks heaps for that....discussed in class today and that is essentially the same what we covered......
Thanks heaps

[TheCommando]

Okay, I know the posts above are at least partly in jest, but I'm going to answer these seriously because I think there's an underlying problem here that's unique to English subjects.

Most subjects consist of a fairly straightforward series of tasks: sit down, do exercises 1-5, Qs. a-g; memorise vocab list from chapter 4; do a practice exam, that sort of thing. Many people would argue you can treat English the same way, and that it's just a matter of finding the right activity to work on.

This approach isn't invalid. Plenty of people have scored very highly by simply understanding the system, writing heaps (/"spamming" essays as I'm told da kidz are calling it) and memorising chunks of whatever works.
I feel like this is perpetuated by a lot of schools, tutors, and even professional companies because it's a comfort. Being told you can write a certain number of essays and be certain of a reasonably good mark is nice to hear. And whilst it's not totally untrue, I do think it's contributing to some serious misconceptions regarding the subject.

The best kept secret, I've found, is that although you may score well if you know what to write, you will definitely score well if you know how to think.

This is an unpopular view for good reasons; it's not like a teacher with a class of 30 can feasibly teach students how to think within 8 months, ~4 hours a week, whilst also conforming to a syllabus and the pressure of exams. I'll admit I've caved to this pressure as well with a few of my students, and end up just focusing on criteria and assessment because of time restrictions or other issues.

But English is a subject that rewards thinking.

You can rote-learn. You can know your texts inside-out and study high-scoring responses and annoy your classroom teacher until they give you so much feedback you can predict what they're going to say. What's more, you're going to feel good about this, because you're physically doing tangible work that your brain associates with progress. Even if you're hitting some mental blockades with the content, it'll still feel like improvement because you're working at it.

For some people this is the only way they learn. Quite a few people in my year level would be writing essays from day one. They were atrocious essays, and were in no way indicative of their abilities, but for them, it was a way of consolidating their knowledge.

But the only reason why this works is because of the (often unintentional) tangential benefits.

Doing the 'class-assigned' kinds of activities is a slow-but-effective way to better your thinking. So why do this when you could go for a fast-but-effective method?

Well, partly because it's going to feel slower. You'll be doing unfamiliar things, and for a long time, you'll probably be doing them badly. However, as someone who's seen the system from both sides now, I've concluded this is a much better way of tackling the course.

For starters, let's clarify what's meant by 'thought.' We all know what it means, but strangely it's not a word that gets tossed around in English classes quite so much as 'juxtaposition' or 'inclusive language' might. This can be attributed to it's abstract-ness: your teacher can't see you thinking, save for seeing the result of the process in essay-form.

So when you're getting essay feedback, you're receiving criticisms for the product of your thinking, right? (-Excluding handwriting issues or minor structural things that you maybe weren't aware of.) Here's where problems start to arise...

For anyone who's worked in retail/ hospitality, you'll probably be familiar with copping blame for things totally out of your control. I used to work in a chicken and chip shop, and I'd have customers who would come in and complain about everything under the sun; chips aren't cooked right, the salt is to salty, the chickens are too small, why does this salad have lettuce in it? etc. etc.
I was but a mere server-girl, and so, realistically, if these bitterly displeased customers actually wanted their problems solved, they would have addressed the root of the problem and not hurled abuse and/or utensils at me.

Your English teachers, in this somewhat tortured metaphor, are akin to my old chicken shop patrons. They're not trained to consider the source of their discomfort, be that a misunderstanding of the text or the fact that our shop was drastically understaffed most nights; instead, their natural inclination is to blame what is made apparent:  the wrong words in a body paragraph, or a slightly dirty fork.

When you get comments on your essay like 'needs development' or 'I'm not sure about this,' what your teachers are actually-sort-of-kinda-but-not-really-trying-to-say is change your thinking! But that sounds weird because it's easier for them to focus on your essay itself, and it's less strenuous for students to obsess over numerical scores or criteria than it is to consider the possibility of mind-altering-drugs-study instead.

Now prepare yourselves for

Lauren's foolproof guide for How to Think Good

To demonstrate this we're going to look at a textual excerpt. You don't have to know anything about it, in fact it's better if you don't. I'm adapting this from an Andrew Bovell play called 'Speaking in Tongues' if anyone's interested.
         VALERIE: [answering machine] John, it's me... Valerie. I wish you'd let me do the message.
                       You sound so... I don't know... distant.
To learn how to think properly for English (/Lit, which is what I usually use this example for, but tomaito tomahto) all you have to do is answer this question: What do you know about Valerie and John?
That's all. But fair warning, my answer to this question is over 2000 words long, and that's all without reference to the play this came from.

Most people will fumble for a starting point at first, like 'well, we know she's talking to John on an answering machine, and that she wants to do the message instead of him.' Later, once you get past the basic, denotative stuff, you'll end up in 'assumptions' territory, eg. maybe they're not getting along, and that's why he sounds distant and she's not allowed to do the message. Keep building on this, and eventually you'll reach full blown implications: John is trying to maintain some semblance of power in their marriage by exerting control over petty things like which of them record an answering machine message. Meanwhile, Valerie is able to undermine his authority through criticism; she is still able to voice her objections, meaning he does not have complete command over her.
That's not to say there is a 'right' answer. You could go in a completely different direction, eg. The fact that the two are communicating via an answering machine - an innately indirect form of conversation - suggests they are not able to engage with one another on any level. Both John and Valerie are "distant," and without artificial conduits like answering machines between them, their relationship has very little holding it together.

Evidently what I'm talking about here is more like overthinking than just thinking, but perhaps that's appropriate.
Let me be clear: this will not directly help you. You should not spend 200 words in an English body paragraph analysing two sentences from the text/article. This is not about a subject-specific skillset, this is about rewiring your brain to look at things differently.

In the above exercise, I extrapolated from two lines of dialogue and concluded that the couple had a serious communication barrier between them, and were likely in the midst of some confusion regarding the power balance between them. I could be wrong, but that's not the point. The point is that I can justify my thinking.

I had a teacher who conducted a similar exercise in class and ended it with 'of course you couldn't say something ridiculous like 'this excerpt suggests John wants to grow a beard' or anything.' But I disagree. 
John's lack of control over Valerie signifies his emasculation ,which is exacerbated by Valerie's implied criticism. She is able to express her wants in no uncertain terms, and her power is marked by a stereotypically feminine "I wish you'd let me" brand of passive aggression. Thus, it seems logical then for John to gravitate towards physicality as a means of reasserting himself with something equally gender codified; perhaps a handlebar mustache, or even a proper, fully-fledged man-beard - an ideogram of his patient but firm dominance.
Note: I would never seriously write that in an essay. This was an exercise in thinking, and taking my analysis further than the surface level. Do this often enough, and you begin to get a feel for what actually belongs in an essay, and what's just conjecture.

I know this is quite text-heavy, but a willingness to read is just important as a willingness to write for English

Yes, it's frustrating when you're not making obvious numerical improvements, and yes, working out what constitutes as "useful" study is a lot tough in English than it is in other subjects, but it ultimately boils down to your willingness to engage with the material.

Think about stuff, and learn how to demonstrate this thinking in the best way possible. No magic required

Sooooooo bloody good

So just keep tryingg to gather as much information from a scentence or two from any text which improves ur thinking
Also im not 100% what being able to think implies, is it your ability to gatther ideas and interpret passagges from the text

[chrissy111]

Hi Lauren

I'm struggling to find resources for 'The lieutenant' which is my text response text.
Do you know where I could find some? (quotes, analysis etc)

And for comparative, my teachers are stressing on the 'idea' the paragraph is based on and talking more about the idea rather than just texts and evidence. Almost 10 lines are for 'commenting on the idea'. Do you think this is a good way to go about comparative? I thought it was more important to compare the texts. (I'm doing Invictus and Ransom btw!)

[literally lauren]

Hi Lauren

I'm struggling to find resources for 'The lieutenant' which is my text response text.
Do you know where I could find some? (quotes, analysis etc)

And for comparative, my teachers are stressing on the 'idea' the paragraph is based on and talking more about the idea rather than just texts and evidence. Almost 10 lines are for 'commenting on the idea'. Do you think this is a good way to go about comparative? I thought it was more important to compare the texts. (I'm doing Invictus and Ransom btw!)

Hi chrissy!

There's a good article here if you're looking for a general overview of key ideas. There's also some decent stuff here. Unfortunately The Lieutenant is in it's first year as a Text Response text, so there may not be a heap of stuff online, but google around and see what you can find

Regarding the comparative task, I would advise against spending too long talking about general ideas - you can certainly discuss them or have topic sentences / connecting sentences / linking sentences that focus more on general commonalities than on specific textual details, but the VCAA criteria seems to put more emphasis on close textual discussion (of both texts) than on your ability to discuss bigger concerns.

Exam marking scheme for your comparative essay is as follows:

So there's nothing wrong with having a few sentences like about key themes like honour, tolerance, community, strength, memory, etc. but I think spending 10 lines per paragraph just on that stuff would be quite risky.

But as always, do what your teacher suggests for your SAC, and do what the examiners suggest for your exam!

[S200]

Randomly...
Would it be right to call 'Animal Farm' a lampoon against socialism?

(Lampoon... that awkward moment when you literally only know a word because of studying the 'Mabo' documentary...
#Thanks2blackfellafilms)

[chrissy111]

Thank you so much!! 

[TSEtuition]

ok sweet... ill keep that in mind. my intro's have never really been 'short'. and whilst i know there is no word amount count, can i ask, how many words would a good short succinct intro be?
thanks

My recommendation is somewhere between 4-6 sentences. It depends on how long your sentences are! Generally the guideline is: 1 or 2 to intro the text, 1 for contention, 1 or 2 to intro body paragraphs. Whatever you write, your intro must be shorter than your shortest body paragraph.

~Shirlaine from TSEtuition

[humblepie]

Hi! Just wondering if someone could help me with this prompt regarding Ransom and Invictus: "compare how the texts explore the competing impulses of duty and self-interest". I have a few basic ideas for each text, but have no clue on how to structure the three body paragraphs (I tend to use the idea-based method rather than the 'one text per paragraph' structure). I would really appreciate some help

[tinagranger]

Hi Lauren I have a few questions regarding the structure of a language analysis essay for the exam when there are 2 or more texts. I have been trying to paragraph by argument, and within the same paragraph, talk about different texts (i.e. 1st article --> linking word --> 2nd article), but I find it very difficult to make quick decisions on how to split my paragraphs when often, the arguments in each written text don't link up nicely with each other.

1. Could I still get 10/10 if I decide to make this my go-to structure:
Separate each text into main arguments/'themes'. Then find 2-3 links for each image in different sections of the essay - i.e. talk about the image in the same paragraphs as the written material.
BUT go through the written texts chronologically - eg: talk about 1st text (blocking that text off by argument) and find 2-3 links to image, then talk about 2nd text (blocking that text off by argument) and then find 2-3 links to image.

This would personally be a lot less stressful for me, because in the past I have sat there for a long time just figuring out how to link the 2 texts into the same paragraph! Would this structure always work?

2. However, if I use this method, how would I compare the two texts? Should my rule of thumb be that the 1st sentence of each paragraph of my 2nd text should be a comparative sentence? Also, is comparison part of the marking criteria? Is a simple linking word such as 'similarly' or 'on the other hand' sufficient, or should my comparative sentence at the start of the paragraphs for my 2nd text be comparing the argument? Or should I be aiming to make comparative comments throughout my whole piece?

3. Also, my concern with this method is that my piece will be imbalanced because the 2nd text is often shorter than the 1st text, and 1 paragraph wouldn't be enough to talk about the 2nd text.

Thus, at the moment, i think this would be my most likely structure, for 2 texts and 2 visuals:
1. Text 1 + visual 1
2. Text 1 + visual 1
3. Text 2 + visual 2
4. Text 2 + visual 2

This would mean that my 3rd and 4th paragraphs would be SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than my 1st and 2nd. Is this structure okay, or could you think of a better way to split paragraphs?

4. For example, is this a good structure for the 2015 LA (on bigsplash):
1. Para Text 1 - praise for bigsplash company --> shift to extolling Australian volunteers and arguing that they enrich and are essential to society.
+ 2 references to the 1st visual linked with text analysis

Para 2. Text 1 - generating guilt in Australians by arguing that we have undervalued and underappreciated volunteers
+ 1 reference to the 1st visual linked with text analysis

Para 3. Text 2 - Mathew Nguyen building praise for his organisation Tradespeople Without Borders and casting himself as a humble, approachable individual, thereby humanising himself in Australian's eyes and gaining the reader's trust.
+ 2 references to the 2nd visual linked with text analysis
(1. Presenting himself as hospitable and casual --> casual clothing of the people joining hands. Lol don't know if this is okay to talk about?
2. By emphasising his desire to 'make a difference' and 'help Australia's reputation as a caring country', Nguyen appeals to the patriotic instincts of his audience, and strives to generate a sense of solidarity and unity amongst Australians who have a fundamental sense of responsibility to help those around him. This notion of cohesion and harmony is given visual reinforcement by the accompanying image, which depicts....)

Para 4. Text 2 - Nguyen humbly proclaiming that though recognition and praise of volunteers is welcomed, it is not necessary and the true reward of volunteering is the delight of helping others.

(My 3rd and 4th paragraphs would be like half the length of my 1st and 2nd paragraphs though, which is what I am worried about!)

5. Would you ever make links to the visual when talking about a text that the visual is NOT accompanied with? Is this common/recommended? Eg: The 2nd visual of the 2015 piece feeding into Bennett's proclamation that humanitarian work 'stitches together the social fabric of our nation'

6. Edit: When the 2nd text is significantly shorter than the 1st text, could I do (using the 2016/2014 exams as an example):
Para 1. 1st text + 1 link to visual
Para 2. 1st text + 1 link to visual
Para 3. 1st text + 1 link to visual
Para 4. 2nd text + 1 link to visual

So could I make my rule of thumb -
if the 2nd text is a decent length, like in 2015, allocate the last 2 paragraphs to it. But if the 2nd text is significantly shorter, like in 2015, allocate only the last paragraph to it? (Again with the concern about uneven paragraph lengths - my last paragraph would most likely be very long. But if I split that paragraph into 2, they would both be very short. Sigh...)

Sorry, I know there is a lot of detail in these questions, but I am really determined to do well on the exam! Thank you so much for your help

[bluebubbles]

Hi there,
I am struggling to fit my text response and comparative essays in 1 hour, so I am wondering if you think it is a 'turn off' (so-to-speak) when an examiner sees an essay with 2 body paragraphs compared to an essay with 3 body paragraphs? Because I am finding it easier to write 2 longer body paragraphs that include more depth, than 3 bodies.
Thanks

[Sine]

Hi there,
I am struggling to fit my text response and comparative essays in 1 hour, so I am wondering if you think it is a 'turn off' (so-to-speak) when an examiner sees an essay with 2 body paragraphs compared to an essay with 3 body paragraphs? Because I am finding it easier to write 2 longer body paragraphs that include more depth, than 3 bodies.
Thanks

Do you think you could find a way to split a body paragraph up? Technically the examiner shouldn't have a problem but unconsciously I feel it may impact your score.

How long are your paragraphs? Because I was always told to never have them too long

I think most people would say 4 body paragraphs is ideal and the min I would go to is 3 long ones.

[lovelyperson]

Question about the oral: would it be too weird or out of place to use past historical events to support a argument about a contemporary issue?

[Sine]

Question about the oral: would it be too weird or out of place to use past historical events to support a argument about a contemporary issue?

depends the specific case you are talking about. 

I remember I used very old historic events for my oral presentation.

[HopefulLawStudent]

Randomly...
Would it be right to call 'Animal Farm' a lampoon against socialism?

(Lampoon... that awkward moment when you literally only know a word because of studying the 'Mabo' documentary...
#Thanks2blackfellafilms)

Considering lampoon means:

lampoon /lamˈpuːn/
verb
1. publicly criticize (someone or something) by using ridicule, irony, or sarcasm.
"the actor was lampooned by the press"

2. a speech or text lampooning someone or something.
"the magazine fired at God, Royalty, and politicians, using cartoons and lampoons"

I think it could work.

My recommendation is somewhere between 4-6 sentences. It depends on how long your sentences are! Generally the guideline is: 1 or 2 to intro the text, 1 for contention, 1 or 2 to intro body paragraphs. Whatever you write, your intro must be shorter than your shortest body paragraph.

~Shirlaine from TSEtuition

TBH I'd argue that 6 sentences especially is potentially too long. I was always taught 3 - 4 sentences but with that said, everyone has a different preference and it does ultimately depend on how long your sentences are.

Hi there,
I am struggling to fit my text response and comparative essays in 1 hour, so I am wondering if you think it is a 'turn off' (so-to-speak) when an examiner sees an essay with 2 body paragraphs compared to an essay with 3 body paragraphs? Because I am finding it easier to write 2 longer body paragraphs that include more depth, than 3 bodies.
Thanks

If they're two hella awesome body paragraphs you might get away with it but the problem with 2 (and why we often recommend 3) is because it's hard to demonstrate depth of knowledge and argument in two body paragraphs. Instead of going with only 2 BPs, try and consider why you're struggling to fit your essay into an hour and work on addressing those issues because 3 in-depth BPs > 2 in-depth BPs any day.

Question about the oral: would it be too weird or out of place to use past historical events to support a argument about a contemporary issue?

All about how you use it. There is no hard and fast rule about that sort of stuff.

Hi Lauren I have a few questions regarding the structure of a language analysis essay for the exam when there are 2 or more texts. I have been trying to paragraph by argument, and within the same paragraph, talk about different texts (i.e. 1st article --> linking word --> 2nd article), but I find it very difficult to make quick decisions on how to split my paragraphs when often, the arguments in each written text don't link up nicely with each other.

1. Could I still get 10/10 if I decide to make this my go-to structure:
Separate each text into main arguments/'themes'. Then find 2-3 links for each image in different sections of the essay - i.e. talk about the image in the same paragraphs as the written material.
BUT go through the written texts chronologically - eg: talk about 1st text (blocking that text off by argument) and find 2-3 links to image, then talk about 2nd text (blocking that text off by argument) and then find 2-3 links to image.

This would personally be a lot less stressful for me, because in the past I have sat there for a long time just figuring out how to link the 2 texts into the same paragraph! Would this structure always work?

2. However, if I use this method, how would I compare the two texts? Should my rule of thumb be that the 1st sentence of each paragraph of my 2nd text should be a comparative sentence? Also, is comparison part of the marking criteria? Is a simple linking word such as 'similarly' or 'on the other hand' sufficient, or should my comparative sentence at the start of the paragraphs for my 2nd text be comparing the argument? Or should I be aiming to make comparative comments throughout my whole piece?

3. Also, my concern with this method is that my piece will be imbalanced because the 2nd text is often shorter than the 1st text, and 1 paragraph wouldn't be enough to talk about the 2nd text.

Thus, at the moment, i think this would be my most likely structure, for 2 texts and 2 visuals:
1. Text 1 + visual 1
2. Text 1 + visual 1
3. Text 2 + visual 2
4. Text 2 + visual 2

This would mean that my 3rd and 4th paragraphs would be SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than my 1st and 2nd. Is this structure okay, or could you think of a better way to split paragraphs?

4. For example, is this a good structure for the 2015 LA (on bigsplash):
1. Para Text 1 - praise for bigsplash company --> shift to extolling Australian volunteers and arguing that they enrich and are essential to society.
+ 2 references to the 1st visual linked with text analysis

Para 2. Text 1 - generating guilt in Australians by arguing that we have undervalued and underappreciated volunteers
+ 1 reference to the 1st visual linked with text analysis

Para 3. Text 2 - Mathew Nguyen building praise for his organisation Tradespeople Without Borders and casting himself as a humble, approachable individual, thereby humanising himself in Australian's eyes and gaining the reader's trust.
+ 2 references to the 2nd visual linked with text analysis
(1. Presenting himself as hospitable and casual --> casual clothing of the people joining hands. Lol don't know if this is okay to talk about?
2. By emphasising his desire to 'make a difference' and 'help Australia's reputation as a caring country', Nguyen appeals to the patriotic instincts of his audience, and strives to generate a sense of solidarity and unity amongst Australians who have a fundamental sense of responsibility to help those around him. This notion of cohesion and harmony is given visual reinforcement by the accompanying image, which depicts....)

Para 4. Text 2 - Nguyen humbly proclaiming that though recognition and praise of volunteers is welcomed, it is not necessary and the true reward of volunteering is the delight of helping others.

(My 3rd and 4th paragraphs would be like half the length of my 1st and 2nd paragraphs though, which is what I am worried about!)

5. Would you ever make links to the visual when talking about a text that the visual is NOT accompanied with? Is this common/recommended? Eg: The 2nd visual of the 2015 piece feeding into Bennett's proclamation that humanitarian work 'stitches together the social fabric of our nation'

6. Edit: When the 2nd text is significantly shorter than the 1st text, could I do (using the 2016/2014 exams as an example):
Para 1. 1st text + 1 link to visual
Para 2. 1st text + 1 link to visual
Para 3. 1st text + 1 link to visual
Para 4. 2nd text + 1 link to visual

So could I make my rule of thumb -
if the 2nd text is a decent length, like in 2015, allocate the last 2 paragraphs to it. But if the 2nd text is significantly shorter, like in 2015, allocate only the last paragraph to it? (Again with the concern about uneven paragraph lengths - my last paragraph would most likely be very long. But if I split that paragraph into 2, they would both be very short. Sigh...)

Sorry, I know there is a lot of detail in these questions, but I am really determined to do well on the exam! Thank you so much for your help

Hey! So I'm not Lauren obv but thought I'd chime in.

Tbh the breakdown that you had for the 2015 piece looks solid though I feel like your first BP argument for Bennett's piece has too many ideas. And I like your theoretical breakdown for where it's not an even split. Don't let yourself get too bogged down in comparison. Keep in mind that comparison is not technically a criteria for Analysing Argument (from my understanding, anyway); we generally just do it so as to facilitate a smoother transition between the pieces.