How'd you go?! Section A discussion here :)
The Twelve Angry Men topics were relatively easy to write on.
Was very happy when I saw that one of the Brooklyn topics was essentially the same essay that I'd written a couple of days ago.Haha, I'm sure it's way better than you expected! I think the Brooklyn topics were pretty generous, just as far as most students would have covered at least one of those prompts in class (as in, lots of people would be familiar with duty, lots of people familiar with opportunity).
Still managed to stuff it up :)
Ahhh, pressure. Always helping me along.
I saw the first 12 angry men prompt and nearly cried tears of joy coz i had done it the night before ahhahatears of joy were shed by me when i saw the 2nd prompt after pretty much all my practice essays revolved around the jury being a microcosm of american society
Hey, does it matter if I forgot to shade the box indicating which text I was writing on for Section A. I probably did do it; I tend to be paranoid. However, I do distinctly remember shading that I was answering topic ii and I wrote the prompt out before I began my essay.
Hey, does it matter if I forgot to shade the box indicating which text I was writing on for Section A. I probably did do it; I tend to be paranoid. However, I do distinctly remember shading that I was answering topic ii and I wrote the prompt out before I began my essay.
So, am I okay if I forgot? Like, does my exam go to a specific assessor who knows my text, or do all assessors do all texts? I'm worried that my essay for this section won't be marked, and I did really well.
Thanks in advance, and I didn't really know where to post this so sorry if it is in the wrong place.
Hope today went well for everybody.
Because the a first Brooklyn prompt mentioned 'characters', I included 2-4 characters in every paragraph and how their actions tied to the idea of that paragraph - ended up being 1800-2000 words. I don't think my sentences were gibbering or anything and everything I included was relevant - do you think the length will work to my disadvantage?Nah... Knowing the type of stuff you probably mentioned for that prompt you'll probs end up with a 10 :P
Ah, will doing 3 relatively large body paragraphs rather than 4 medium sized paragraphs be criticized? Spent so much time on section C that I was torn choosing between 2 discuss/character questions :-\
Also I don't think I shades the little i. or ii. box to indicate which prompt I did, but I discussed/used the words freedom and duty in my intro, will that be ok?Yeah, I'm sure they know the difference between opportunity and duty! You'll be fine, they'll figure it out.
i did the second prompt for twelve angry men.... i felt as though this was my strongest piece in the exam..What'd you say about it?
although im basically so cut at how i did for B and C, this is helping me get through
What'd you say about it?
how much does it matter if i didn't have a conclusion for my text response? i still managed to write everything else to a pretty good level (was really happy with the prompt), but i ran out of time and didn't get to write up a conclusion. how much of an impact would it have?It matters a little bit. More than it would in an LA piece, but I'm sure you'll still score a pretty high range response. A mate of mine scored 57/60 in his exam without concluding any of his three essays, so it's all good! Two of my pieces were unfinished for a 56/60. Don't let it stress you out man, you prepped really well, I'm confident you'll score highly :)
honestly feeling kinda shattered right now, i spent ages on lang analysis (and ended up with a really shit piece anyway) which meant i just didn't have enough time :\
I spoke about how the jury is a microcosm for 1950's american society plagued with xenophobia and racial attitudes, the misogyny demonstrated by juror 10 as well as his overtly bigoted demeanour.. umm i mentioned how the weather is a fluctuating medium which promotes juror indifference and potentially polarises the jurors when changing to a non guilty verdict. i spoke about how juror 3's personal attachment to the case stimulated intolerance.. used 'leaping into the breach' and managed to swing in juror 10's 'smart bastards' quote :PSounds mad!
But i dont know, i dont even know if that makes sense lol... oh well what's done is done
Can someone please tell me if what I did was OK for text response? I did Wilfred Owen. I am terrible at making topic sentences and ideas up on the spot to match the prompt so if I did ... woo! If not :(
'How do Owen's poems expose the tragedy of war.'
First para - I spoke about the imagery that shows complete character degradation. spoke about bearing witness to debilitating truths of war like 'flesh corrupted lungs' of fallen comrades and shit. I continuously linked it back to 'tragedy.'
Second Para - this is me trying to be complex and go both ways. I said something like 'Owen attempts to romanticise his depictions of war, but in the end the tragedy of war is supreme over all beauty at war.' Then I was speaking about the chronological shift in poems going from like happy environment things like the sun being 'kind' to being 'fatuous' and being more idealistic. As such whilst Owen tries to highlight the goodness in war, tragedy prevails. something like that.
Third paragraph - I spoke about unfortunate circumstances that the speakers of the poems found themselves in, typically forced into positions due to the propagates of the war. I spoke about going to war and dying for their parents being tragic for the soldiers, i spoke about the tragedy of the environment turning against them as soldiers were stuck in 'teeth of traps' and were 'at the bottom (of the hole) of its throat stuck in phlegm' which I made seem unfortunate for soldiers (continuously linking back to the word tragedy). Lastly I wrote about the treatment of soldiers having their humanity omitted by the propagates of the war or by those who 'dealt paws of the war and madness' or some shit. Made it seem like they were misfortunate in their treatment at war.
Is all this on topic? I CONTINUOUSLY linked back to the word TRAGIC and had the word TRAGEDY opened in front of me the whole time in the dictionary. lololol!!!
All seems good to me except for one thing, I don't think Owen attempts to speak about the goodness of war, his aim in his poems are to reveal the true, brutal nature of war, he has even been quoted in saying that poetry should speak the truth or something like that and is against other war poets who deemed to talk about war as a beautiful thing.
what'd you guys think of the A christmas carol prompts?Pretty good I thought! Original enough not to be boring and blaaargh, but still accessible to most people who studied the text I would say.
Almost cried of happiness when I saw the Ransom prompts, ngl. Wrote a basic ass essay on it which is disappointing but the prompts were fantab.
I only do war poems but both of the questions were incredibly accessibleThe first question for Twelve angry Men seemed fairly accessible and was a godsend because I'd done a fairly similar prompt a day or two ago. Was able to draw on ideas from other essays I have written and I think it ended up being about one paragraph different to my practice essay. 😊
were all the prompts relatively easy or was i just very lucky? Wouldn't it be unfair if I get easy prompts and everyone else gets hard prompts?
Did anyone study "All About Eve"?
I did All About Eve, I did the one on appearance
Both the prompts for The Reluctant Fundamentalist were good! Ended up writing on the second one:
'Hamid's ambiguous presentation of the story means that readers can interpret it in very different ways. Discuss.'
;D
Yeah I wrote on the second one too; I felt like the first prompt was super boring and basically a description of the novel itself rather than something insightful. What did you write about?
LOL.
I read ransom as well. if i got that prompt i would have given up, rolled over and died.
Yeah it seemed like an identity question so other people would have liked it.
I basically wrote about the ambiguous relationship with Changez and the American (so like pathetic fallacy, allegory etc.) then Changez's unreliability and his 9/11 reaction. Then I ended on the ending where the reader's prejudices and intepretations are ultimately challenged.
What about you? :)
AMEN haha. I didn't like the Ransom prompts but... it is what it is.
seemed damn hard compared to my one. did you do ransom? How'd you go?
really? That's good then xD I thought they were okay, not wonderful but maybe it was cuz I was expecting one on storytelling haha :P
Almost cried of happiness when I saw the Ransom prompts, ngl. Wrote a basic ass essay on it which is disappointing but the prompts were fantab.
yes! ugh tell me about it! i was paranoid thinking it would be some crazy ass abstract topic since it was its last year but the second topic was a godsend! :'D3 griddlecakes for you mam.
Yeah it seemed like an identity question so other people would have liked it.
I basically wrote about the ambiguous relationship with Changez and the American (so like pathetic fallacy, allegory etc.) then Changez's unreliability and his 9/11 reaction. Then I ended on the ambiguous ending where the reader's prejudices and intepretations are ultimately challenged.
What about you? :)
3 griddlecakes for you mam.
same haha
Both the prompts for The Reluctant Fundamentalist were good! Ended up writing on the second one:
'Hamid's ambiguous presentation of the story means that readers can interpret it in very different ways. Discuss.'
;D
I wrote on the first topic. I thought it was interesting that one topic wasn't on fundamentalism given it hasn't been on the exam before and it's in the last year on the text list. But I did so many identity based ones, both before my SAC and before the exam. I was so happy it was something to do with identity - I did a little fist pump to myself during reading time. I did also like the second one, but thought I could write better on the first!
I think they actually might have covered fundamentalism early on - something about Changez being reluctant or not, which directly relates to the topic of fundamentalism.
For the question for A Christmas Carol regarding actions/enduring consequences, the following formed my arguments:Post the prompt
* A life bereft of love and happiness leads to prolonged misery
- Scrooge is transported to the Cratchits and sees that they're happy despite financial limitations; realises that his quest for wealth which has obliterated human connections has caused him to lose the happiness he sees.
- Scrooge realises the 'joy, the gratitude and the ecstasy' that he has lost as a result of being engrossed by the 'master passion, Gain'.
I then made it less about Scrooge by saying through Scrooge, Dickens illustrates that <main argument>.
* A life where one does not bestow upon the poor assistance will drive the impoverished further into poverty.
- Tiny Tim: not only is he marginalised socio-economically, but is further disadvantaged due to his physical disability. If he does not receive adequate healthcare, he will die. [this exemplifies the essence of making provisions to the destitute].
- Discussed the slums/ depiction of poverty as a result of the negligence of the elite.
- Discussed Ignorance and Want and how they have been created as a consequence of the forces of capitalism.
* A life where one does not become immersed in human relations will lead to a doomed afterlife.
- Marley's Ghost: how his immersion in pursuing worldly fortunes leads him to an afterlife of 'incessant torture of remorse'.
- Scrooge witnessing his grave really underpins the notion that one's fate is bleak if they do not rectify or amend their ways in their current life.
I came up with 4 body paragraphs (broke the second argument into two paragraphs). Are these good arguments? What am I looking at?
Post the prompt
"An important theme in A Christmas Carol is that actions have enduring consequences".
Seriously, the Wilfred Owen essay question was the best!
How does Wilfred Owens Poetry expose the tragedies of war?
I did all my practise SAC essays and Exam essays on this theme, on how he constructed it to expose whatever
My SAC was what was he trying to expose through his poetry.
So I got in an actually laughed out loud.
Para 1: How he uses imagery to convey the tragedies etc
Para 2: How he used metric structure etc. So I touched on Pentameter, Rhyme etc to ellicit a response in his audience. And then the piece de resistance: In his preface he mentions how he is not concerned with poetry. My subject is War and The Pity of War. The poetry is in the pity
I went on to say in Dulce how he adhered perfectly to the standard poetic features at the time such as pentameter, but when the gas attacks or the pity hits, then it all goes out and the window, and then is when we truly see Wilfred Owens poetry, only when the pity occurs. The poetry is in the pity<3
Para 3: I used his writing style. From a boy who spoke of Bluebells moon by moon and finding gay fairyland to a man who knew loss and spoke of drooping tongues from jaws that slop their relish
I spoke how he used suck evokative imagery to fully explicate to the reader the atrocities of war.
Think I went pretty well on this.
Same here Josiah. I was considering doing the second one for complexity but A was way to easy to pass up.
Your paragraphs sound great. The first paragraph I also spoke about images. I spoke about the 'helpless sight' of the soldier bearing witness to the debilitating truths of war, like the 'froth corrupted lungs' and shit leading them to 'men marching asleep' seeing total mental degradation in the speaker that let them to be dehumanised and 'men marched asleep' and shit like that.
The second one I tried to be complex and go both ways, not sure if it was good. I said that Owen attempted to beautify war through his romanticised depictions, but ultimately tragedy prevailed. I spoke that throughout his poems (futility and spring offensive) he began trying to beautify nature and make war sound good, but the poems saw a chronological shift towards tragedy.
Lastly I said owen exposed the unfortunate circumstances that soldiers were put in. I spoke about the gruelling environment of cramped in that funnelled hole, i spoke about the parents allowing children to kill themselves for their honour (S.I.W) then I spoke about the treatment that the propagates of war gave the soldiers (Mental Cases) treating them like psychos in an experiment .. those that 'pawed us those who dealt us war and madness.' As such, he exposed the tragedies of war. I continually referenced the word tragedy.
How do you think I'll do :) I'm hoping for a 9.
Any Mabo peeps?
Haha, I gave up on Mabo a week out of the exam and switched to Stasiland. So much easier to write on 300 pages of material rather than 2 hours of film (at least for me, personally). How did you find it though? The first prompt was so open it was almost a disadvantage - the second prompt looked quite promising though, plenty of room for filmic language and construction etc.Yeah I was really hoping for a good topic for mabo and i had quotes prepared so I was quite shattered when I saw the prompts. I went with the first one anyway and you're right it was so broad but I just spoke about how important the land was to mabo and just gave examples of when it was seen.I tried challenging the topic and wrote about how it's more than just pride and that family values and culture are highly evident. That's all i could come up with, definitely wasn't my best piece but oh well...I think the mabo prompt was the shortest prompt from all the texts!