ATAR Notes: Forum
Archived Discussion => English Exams => HSC Exam Discussion 2017 => Results => New South Wales => Paper 2 (Advanced) Exam Discussion => Topic started by: jamonwindeyer on October 16, 2017, 09:57:21 pm
-
This is the place to discuss your Paper 2 (Advanced) Exam questions!! Good, bad or ugly?
Note: To post, just register and then scroll down to the Quick Reply window at the bottom of the page!
-
Richard people: THERE WAS NO GENDER QUESTION! I personally think this Richard III question was excellent!
I think W B Yeats WAS BRUTAAAAAAAALLLLL
And I think Module C Landscapes was super swell.
How did you all go?
-
For some reason I though the Yeats question was fine - I guess it was so complicated you could really angle your response many avensues. My thesis surrounded his personal influences, so internal conflict kinda worked with referencing easter, wild swans and then school children.
-
Honestly words cant express the pain my hand is in . Anyway I was pleased that the specified speech was Sadat which i was hoping it be . Module a for EBB and Gatsby was a little strange in that it referred to commitment and module c was okay but like it was weirdly worded.
Overall gys i just wanted to say a huge , huge ,huge thankyou to you guys honestly your efforts are much appreciated I hope that i too soon can start helping aha probs in the more mathy sciency sort of areas .
But honestly thanks heaps :) :) :) :) ;) ;) ;) :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
how would you interpret the 'strength' and 'weakness' of Yeats's poetry and his 'unique voice'? and the 'inferiority' portrayed in Richard?
that first 5 minutes of reading time was much needed to really think about how to interpret the questions!
-
Module B - Hamlet
that was terrible...
-
Module B was pretty full on. For Hamlet is was on 'highly constructed dramatic experience', and 'devoid of conventional heroes' and of course the 'That is its strength. That is its weakness'. I tried to look at Hamlet as an unconventional hero through his revenge path and unconventional in this mental state and values. Then there was the dramatic experience too. It was definitely the most brutal question in the exam
-
AAAARRRRRGGHHHHH!!!!!!! THAT WAS BAD!!! TALK ABOUT USE UP MY 9TH LIFE :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o >:( >:( >:( >:(
i thought the richard question was tooooo narrow but never mind it's too late now so who cares ENGLISH IS GONE FOREVVVEERRRR ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Did anyone else just toss all their English notes in the bin?
-
Metropolis + 1984 - good
TS Eliot - crippled
King Henry - alright
-
Did anyone else just toss all their English notes in the bin?
UHUH!! after ripping them and throwing them and covering the playground with them...yess ;D
-
That Hamlet question sucked. Also People and Politics didn't fit my related text. At least the paper will scale OK.
-
Module B was pretty full on. For Hamlet is was on 'highly constructed dramatic experience', and 'devoid of conventional heroes' and of course the 'That is its strength. That is its weakness'. I tried to look at Hamlet as an unconventional hero through his revenge path and unconventional in this mental state and values. Then there was the dramatic experience too. It was definitely the most brutal question in the exam
I found the Hamlet question ok as it didn't specify a notion like previous years that asked for corruption or truth and deceit etc. I just treated the unconventional hero as meaning Hamlet was NOT the normal Aristotelian revenge tragedy hero as he vacillated between action and inaction, rather than killing Claudius straight away. I then said this dramatic treatment of Hamlet's indecision and struggle to reconcile the expectations of others with his conscience was its strength, making it enduring.
What did other people do?
-
Metropolis/1984: Pretty good, I wrote the most for this essay (5 1/2 pages) and I thought the question was ok. :D
Hamlet: Terrible! (Happy that i'm not the only one that thinks this! I also did a paragraph that wasn't heaps to relevant to the question :( )
Art of Travel: Ok
My hand is dead though. (cheering because there is no more English ;D)
-
UHUH!! after ripping them and throwing them and covering the playground with them...yess ;D
HAHAHA! I did the same thing.. it felt sooo good!
-
Mod A: It's Ok.
Mod B: Absolute shit. Magi prescribed is the worst.
Mod C: Pretty good.
Overall, eh. :-\
-
ENGLISH IS FOREVER OVVVVER!! ;D ;D
mod a: bad, bad, bad- inferiority?? richard?? huh?? ???
mod b: the worst!!... do jane eyre and there was soo many components to it!! :-X
mod c: meh :-\
basically, sooo glad its over!! :) ;D ;)
-
Wow that Mod B question for TS Eliot was so dense! A beautiful question, but very stressful :( But Journey of the Magi eew
-
Pretty happy overall- mod A Kriii I thought was easily adaptable, mod b speeches was probably the hardest, like did anyone else say the statement was mostly not true? :-\ kind of difficult to argue!
Mod c was ok, I ran out of time a bit though and cut out a few of my related quotes, but other than that, I feel a lot better about this exam than yesterday's one :)
-
MOD A: 1984 + Metropolis
The question was so good, but I happened to be sick and had a coughing fit at the beginning of the exam so that threw me off for the first ten minutes ): Had to rewrite my introduction like, three times because the coughing made me lose my train of thought LOL
MOD B: Non-fiction speeches
WHO WOULD'VE THOUGHT THAT THEY'D SPECIFY FREAKING SADAT. I was so sure that they'd either not specify, and if they did, it'd be Atwood. But damn. It was the only speech I wasn't going to prepare for but thank god, last night my paranoia kicked in and I spent a good two hours on cramming Sadat. The question, I thought, was quite confusing at first? But I chose to disagree with the statement, and used Keating's Redfern Speech as my second text.
MOD C: King Henry IV
I was going to kiss the paper when I saw the word "perspectives" because I prepared the most for that aspect of the rubric. I thought the question was kind of weird? Especially the statement on the contest of perspectives and stuff. But I wrote the most for Mod C and managed to squeeze in four long paragraphs, so I'm pretty proud of that.
Overall, I'm happy I never have to touch English ever again, and I can finally move on and forgot all of these disgusting English quotes LOL
-
I think pretty much the theme of that paper was that it was important to take a couple of moments to actually understand the question.
MOD A - Realised quickly manipulation in JC and Machiavelli was about how power and authority is manipulated within both texts so that was fairly easy to do.
MOD B - A very loaded and wordy question of many elements for Kane but once again, after a couple of moments of reflection I could see I could argue to a moderate extent it was true given that on the one hand, Welles' construction of Kane display his lack of a genuine understanding of love, but on the other hand, in his death at the end, Kane's sense of loneliness and regret is highly genuine and real. Argued that both of these were the film's strength rather than weakness due to their enduring relevance to audiences of both Welles' time(American Dream) and today's consumerist society (who mistake material worth as a way of filling emotional voids)
MOD C - BNW was easy for this as I just based it on conformity vs defiance and how the BNW uses social/scientific conditioning to ensure that their political perspective is the dominant one and used John and Bernard's protest against the BNW as examples of the contest between political perspectives but in Bernard's willingness to be accepted and thus conform and John's suicide, it proved the power of the conditioning of the BNW as the greatest means of winning the 'battle' for power. My ORT Malala Yousafzai's speech, however, was a bit hard to adapt to as there wasn't explicit references in the text to the Taliban's political perspective so I just basically argued the Taliban as having the perspective that ordinary people are powerless/of no value with references to quotes by Malala expressing their use of violence/fear as their "means" of ensuring subservience to their power. Then contrasted with Malala's profession in the power of individuals/ordinary people and how she uses her voice as her "means" of arguing her perspective and winning the 'battle'.
So, in essence, my question seemed hard at first but just a few minutes allowed me to understand what they were looking for :)
Now to get pumped for 3 hours of Modern on Friday!
-
I found the Hamlet question ok as it didn't specify a notion like previous years that asked for corruption or truth and deceit etc. I just treated the unconventional hero as meaning Hamlet was NOT the normal Aristotelian revenge tragedy hero as he vacillated between action and inaction, rather than killing Claudius straight away. I then said this dramatic treatment of Hamlet's indecision and struggle to reconcile the expectations of others with his conscience was its strength, making it enduring.
What did other people do?
Paragraph 1: tried to argue Hamlet is initially characterised as a traditional hero and Claudius as a traditional villain.
Paragraph 2: said that Shakespeare then subverts the audience's expectation by making Hamlet unconventional (humanism). Talked about the subversion of good/evil and evil/good of Hamlet and Laertes respectively and tried to say this made them realistic, hence giving the play lasting value.
Paragraph 3: talked about mortality and how characterising Hamlet as unconventional enables this through the soliloquys.
Basically I didn't address the first part of the question. But there's a few ways to answer it, dunno how effective mine is.
-
I think pretty much the theme of that paper was that it was important to take a couple of moments to actually understand the question.
MOD A - Realised quickly manipulation in JC and Machiavelli was about how power and authority is manipulated within both texts so that was fairly easy to do.
MOD B - A very loaded and wordy question of many elements for Kane but once again, after a couple of moments of reflection I could see I could argue to a moderate extent it was true given that on the one hand, Welles' construction of Kane display his lack of a genuine understanding of love, but on the other hand, in his death at the end, Kane's sense of loneliness and regret is highly genuine and real. Argued that both of these were the film's strength rather than weakness due to their enduring relevance to audiences of both Welles' time(American Dream) and today's consumerist society (who mistake material worth as a way of filling emotional voids)
MOD C - BNW was easy for this as I just based it on conformity vs defiance and how the BNW uses social/scientific conditioning to ensure that their political perspective is the dominant one and used John and Bernard's protest against the BNW as examples of the contest between political perspectives but in Bernard's willingness to be accepted and thus conform and John's suicide, it proved the power of the conditioning of the BNW as the greatest means of winning the 'battle' for power. My ORT Malala Yousafzai's speech, however, was a bit hard to adapt to as there wasn't explicit references in the text to the Taliban's political perspective so I just basically argued the Taliban as having the perspective that ordinary people are powerless/of no value with references to quotes by Malala expressing their use of violence/fear as their "means" of ensuring subservience to their power. Then contrasted with Malala's profession in the power of individuals/ordinary people and how she uses her voice as her "means" of arguing her perspective and winning the 'battle'.
So, in essence, my question seemed hard at first but just a few minutes allowed me to understand what they were looking for :)
Now to get pumped for 3 hours of Modern on Friday!
Yes that was really important to do beforehand, I took a few minutes before doing any writing to plan each question properly because they were often vague. They really did give you plenty of options though.
Leadership in Metropolis/1984 could be government of leaders of rebellion
Unconventional hero in Hamlet could be interpreted as morally/mentally unconventional or just different to a conventional revenge tragedy hero
Then The Art of Travel- enriching and uneasy- it could be art and its audience and sublime landscapes vs disappointing
-
Paragraph 1: tried to argue Hamlet is initially characterised as a traditional hero and Claudius as a traditional villain.
Paragraph 2: said that Shakespeare then subverts the audience's expectation by making Hamlet unconventional (humanism). Talked about the subversion of good/evil and evil/good of Hamlet and Laertes respectively and tried to say this made them realistic, hence giving the play lasting value.
Paragraph 3: talked about mortality and how characterising Hamlet as unconventional enables this through the soliloquys.
Basically I didn't address the first part of the question. But there's a few ways to answer it, dunno how effective mine is.
That seems like a really good way to structure it. Basically I went:
Paragraph 1- Dramatic structure and strength in regards to integrity (which was pretty iffy for me)
Paragraph 2- Unconventional in terms of good/bad
Paragraph 3- Unconventional in terms of human condition in context- but nonetheless mirrored the confusion in any society
The only thing I could say for weakness was its ambiguity but I found that a strength more than anything
-
Totally hard hard hard exam..........
Mod B - Jane Eyre was definitely my worst......
felt like i was running out of time so my analysis was terrible :( :( :( :(
anywayss........ it is over now!!! YAYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
::) ??? 8) :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :) :-* :'(
-
Did anyone else just toss all their English notes in the bin?
Im keeping them so i can burn them on a bonfire when we go post HSC camping
-
For mod b citizen Kane it asked to what extent, so I said that the fact that that the movie is ALMOST void of emotions is inherently a strength and not a weakness because it gives the text it's enduring ability in that it expresses concerns regarding the complex nature of people. One concern was that humans cannot be understood and the fact that the only emotional indicator is the notion of rosebud highlights this. The other one was the issue that through being almost void of emotion ( the example for not being in such a way was how the film displayed a wholesome snap of his childhood ) Welles shows that taking away ones childhood and sense of security leads to their downfall into a weak character as was seen other emotionless components of the movie where Kane displayed his love for power and not for relationships
Is that an okay approach? I see everyone decided to go both ways and I argued that it was a strength throughout so implied that the statement was only true to an extent in my view. Someone pls tell me I didn't screw up I am nervous
-
It wasnt too bad. I feel it went better than paper 1. The questions were nice so I actually had ideas to talk about I think I just messed up in executing some parts, whoops.... Especially Hamlet, I was trying to explain his procrastination but I didnt have any quotes to support my argument so that was a shit papragraph. I also don't think I explained why he was an unconvetional hero, but at least I had something to talk about, which is a start.
For EBB and gatsby I think my last paragraph on infidelity got a bit covoluted, as did my mod C paragraph about the uneasy relationships in the Art of Travel. Other than that I think it was a good paper, dont know how i ended up with 5 mins to spare though.... :)
-
Here are my thoughts on the paper:
MOD A (1984/Metropolis): I felt like it was a pretty straight-forward question. Luckily, my analysis was already largely focused around leadership and the implication of it's use and abuse in society. When I first read the question, I started tearing up a little. I was super excited to see something like this, it gave me a lot of confidence leading into the rest of the paper.
MOD B (Speeches): In preparation for this extremely unforgiving module I was VERY paranoid. Specifying a speech in itself, led me to memorising quotes, techniques and context for all 7 of the speeches; equating upwards of 100 in total. To make it worse, I feared either a very specific conceptual question, or them asking to use 3 speeches. Thankfully, and quite humorously, they did none of this >:( . I was beyond relieved to see that they asked for Sadat, and I'm sure that the vast majority of us doing this elective would have felt a little more comfortable with the question. I picked Pearson (by far my favourite of them all), but I did consider using Atwood too (2nd favourite, would have worked well too). My argument was that a balance of manipulating rhetoric and discussing substance made speech an effective medium to incite meaningful change, rather than a diminution of content. Agreeing with the question seemed to require so much more effort (which I had 0 to spare lol).
MOD C (Judith Wright): NO. 2. ORT. QUESTION. I was definitely stressing about this one. You have to use at least 2 of the poems to demonstrate an understanding of the prescribed material, which if I was asked 2 ORTS, meant I would have to balance 4 texts with detailed analysis. Yep, I was feeling the pressure on that one. Thankfully, the statement for People and Landscapes was really conducive with my argument, and it practically allowed me to use my thesis as is ;D
OVERALL, I felt extremely lucky with the questions for my electives and prescribed texts. All of the questions fit my examples and analysis seamlessly. My theses fit perfectly. Pearson worked a treat with Mod B. I genuinely feel so lucky. The confidence I had after reading the questions was just... I highly doubt I would have written 10 pages for each of my essays, even the allocated space, if I had felt anxious.
I'm super sorry for everyone with the other electives and texts, I hope it wasn't as bad as you think! Let's keep working towards our next exams! Here's to us in Modern on Friday, breaking our hands yet again in an intense speed-writing competition :'(
-
For mod b citizen Kane it asked to what extent, so I said that the fact that that the movie is ALMOST void of emotions is inherently a strength and not a weakness because it gives the text it's enduring ability in that it expresses concerns regarding the complex nature of people. One concern was that humans cannot be understood and the fact that the only emotional indicator is the notion of rosebud highlights this. The other one was the issue that through being almost void of emotion ( the example for not being in such a way was how the film displayed a wholesome snap of his childhood ) Welles shows that taking away ones childhood and sense of security leads to their downfall into a weak character as was seen other emotionless components of the movie where Kane displayed his love for power and not for relationships
Is that an okay approach? I see everyone decided to go both ways and I argued that it was a strength throughout so implied that the statement was only true to an extent in my view. Someone pls tell me I didn't screw up I am nervous
dw i did similar
argued the statement moderately accurate
said that kane was void of genuine love but his sense of loneliness and regret at the end of the film was genuine
said this all was the strength of the film not weakness as like you said it contributed to its enduring value to audiences of welles' time and today :)
-
Isho Dinkha - St Dominics College Kingswood
Absolutely easiest exam ever! Band 6!
Studies of Religion | English Advanced | Society and Culture | French Extension | English Extension | Legal Studies
-
Module B was sooooo bad. I hadn't even read Among School Children ... 🤣 It's a long poem!! Ain't nobody got time for dat! RIP to my English mark haha...
-
I was really happy with the Mod A and C questions, but Mod B threw me off a little! So glad that they specified Sadat though, my favourite speech to discuss by far ;D
-
Did anyone do Wit and Donne for Mod A? How valid is arguing that love is portrayed through ones love for life in one of the paragraphs haha? I did love in relationships for the other 2 paras.
-
dw i did similar
argued the statement moderately accurate
said that kane was void of genuine love but his sense of loneliness and regret at the end of the film was genuine
said this all was the strength of the film not weakness as like you said it contributed to its enduring value to audiences of welles' time and today :)
yay! thanks for the reassurance LMAOO. i don't remember if i explicitly said moderately accurate or nah but i did direct it to the statement using the words so should be alright. fingers crossed for results day
-
I don't know if I answered the mod B question properly (Cloudstreet). My whole argument was that ordinary people have the power to change their weaknesses to strengths. let me know what you guys think ?
-
Magi for mod b wtf... worst poem that could be asked :(
Mod A was good, Mod C eh alright
-
MOD B (Speeches): In preparation for this extremely unforgiving module I was VERY paranoid. Specifying a speech in itself, led me to memorising quotes, techniques and context for all 7 of the speeches; equating upwards of 100 in total. To make it worse, I feared either a very specific conceptual question, or them asking to use 3 speeches. Thankfully, and quite humorously, they did none of this >:( . I was beyond relieved to see that they asked for Sadat, and I'm sure that the vast majority of us doing this elective would have felt a little more comfortable with the question. I picked Pearson (by far my favourite of them all), but I did consider using Atwood too (2nd favourite, would have worked well too). My argument was that a balance of manipulating rhetoric and discussing substance made speech an effective medium to incite meaningful change, rather than a diminution of content. Agreeing with the question seemed to require so much more effort (which I had 0 to spare lol).
I approached the question similarly to how you did too! I felt like it was way too much effort to agree with the question and have to prove the second half of the statement, so I also argued that an equal balance of rhetoric and substance within the speech was way more effective for the speaker to convey their purpose or intentions.
-
Mod B T.S Eliot was the worst for me. Seriously, Journey of the Magi? I was praying they wouldn't specify but obviously they had to!!!!
-
I was really happy with the Mod A and C questions, but Mod B threw me off a little! So glad that they specified Sadat though, my favourite speech to discuss by far ;D
Hahaha, for my grade, it was the total opposite!! You could hear the collective groans and laughter when we all realised that Sadat was specified. It was like everyone's hearts broke just a little bit more LOL
-
Honestly I think I did better in Modules than Discovery. Jake's essay plan strategy was honestly a godsend and it worked out for all 3 questions.
A, Richard -- Inferiority seems like such an odd value I was totally caught off guard. It probably referred to female frailty, but I tweaked it slightly and talked about moral inferiority (Richard v Richmond) and Richard's self-proclaimed superiority that entitles him to break from God's Divine Order. Whereas Pacino's a lot more subtle about the Richard/Richmond divide.
B, Speeches -- Hallelujah it's a Political Speech. I did Sadat and Keating, talking about the "substance" being its impact on society in the future. Sadat got the Camp-David Accords and Egypt-Israel peace treaty signed, whereas Howard came along and ruined Keating's attempts with his black armband history nonsense. I feel like the question was trying to get us to use Deane, and also argue that some of them don't have textual integrity (which goes against the module's purpose??)
C, Brave New World -- Everything political involves some kind of conflict of opinion, thank god. I did a meta and talked about how the composers were using their texts to try and protest the status quo perspectives in their own society-- Huxley's concerns of technology v society's "all technological progress is good"
It wasn't the best paper, but I found it overall manageable :)
-
Happy with mods A and C! I wrote about 8 pages for each. I think they were fairly legible.. Mod B killed me though. I'm not even sure if the paradigms I used were right? I focused my paradigms around the narrative voice and discussed them differently in relation to strengths and weaknesses. For example one of them was Eliot's rich use of intertextuality within his poetry, then went on to talk about how that enhances its meaning as it creates a greater synergetic value but talked about it as a weakness because it makes his poetry less accessible?? The other paradigms I used were about religion and the personal voice and I'm not really sure if that was right! Honestly not sure what going to happen for mod b! I wrote about 7 pages though
-
I feel like the question was trying to get us to use Deane, and also argue that some of them don't have textual integrity (which goes against the module's purpose??)
Same! When I first read the question, I was super tempted to go ahead and blast Deane's speech, ultimately I decided against it. Like you said, it really wouldn't make sense to argue that it has no integrity; especially when all it does is seek to further one's diplomatic power ::)
-
Hahaha, for my grade, it was the total opposite!! You could hear the collective groans and laughter when we all realised that Sadat was specified. It was like everyone's hearts broke just a little bit more LOL
So many people I knew didn't go back over Sadat in their study because they either hated it, or thought that NESA wouldn't specify it because it's the first text in the list. I hope they ended up ok! ::)
-
I approached the question similarly to how you did too! I felt like it was way too much effort to agree with the question and have to prove the second half of the statement, so I also argued that an equal balance of rhetoric and substance within the speech was way more effective for the speaker to convey their purpose or intentions.
Oh awesome! Great minds think alike ;D
Which speech did you use to supplement Sadat? I wonder how common our thesis was ::)
-
guys!!! so they obviously chose the poem for us... but the thing is I didn't study much for the chosen poem! 'journey of the magi.' anyway, do you know how it said 'at least one other poem' i did two more, because i didnt know much about the chosen poem. will i lose marks? but i wrote about them all in an equal level!
-
anyone else not finish lol?
-
Paper 2 was alright but definitely felt more confident about Paper 1.
Mod A = I do Letters to Alice/Pride and Prejudice and whilst the question itself was easy to understand it was strangely specific when it asked about social class because Letters to Alice doesn't cover that much (plus...I hadn't really revised on my quotes and examples on social class for both texts because I primarily focused on marriage and the role of the women whoopsies). Tried to adapt it as much as possible but I know the second half of my essay is definitely pretty weak
Mod B = The Hamlet question wasn't too bad, although there were a lot of elements to it and it was worded a little strangely when it said "That is its strength. That is its weakness." so took a little time to wrap my head around how I could answer that. Also it was the first question I did so I know my writing was a bit frazzled, but I think I argued that its strength lay in how it offers audiences a dissenting/new view on revenge tragedy form through its lack of conventional heroes, yet its weakness is it does not offer audiences a complete resolution (then discussed about Hamlet and how he does not experience a true moment of catharsis at the end of the play in comparison to other revenge tragedy heroes or characters in play itself, such as Laertes + his questioning/contemplative nature that leads lack of resolution). This question was good though in the sense you could talk a lot about Hamlet's humanist, existential nature and how this made him an 'unconventional hero'. Also tied in Claudius and linked the first part of the question to the revenge tragedy form etc
Mod C = Lol thought the people and politics question was so dramatic and, like with a lot of the questions, was worded quite strangely and there were a lot of elements you had to address. Also it was hard because it didn't really relate to my prescribed/related text because another perspective isn't really shown, but my thesis was just that there is a contest of perspectives yet it is ultimately won by political figures and they 'block' their opposing perspective etc etc.
Overall exam was OK but not feeling super confident about it, at least advanced is DONE and we never have to stress about writing 3 essays in 2 hours ever again !!! :)))))
-
Mod A- Julius Caesar and The Prince we had to talk about manipulation so I talked in one paragraph about how rulers can manipulate their appearance and then did a second paragraph about morality and did a kinda weak link to the question by saying that manipulation is immoral oops
Mod B- Citizen Kane a weird question but not as specific as I feared. I talked about how Kane valued personal control and wealth over emotion and how his downfall refutes the American Dream and continues to be relevant to society. I said that the weakness was a lack of emotional engagement in the audience but this was also its strength because its a reflection of how pursuing power and wealth leads to a lack of fulfillment but I don't know if I got this across very clearly
Mod C- I really liked, didn't write as much as I hoped though. I said that Brave New World and my ORT use textual forms and features as the means available to them to argue for freedom in preference to totalitarianism and individuality in preference to stability.
I feel so much better now that English is done!! I don't have another exam until Monday!
-
I seriously can not stop overthinking about this exam. . .
Mod B- Whoever else did ts eliot, how did you approach the strength/ weakness? I discussed how the STRENGTH of his poetry lies in his ability to use the voice to reflect the Modernist individual's distressed psyche, and ultimately the WEAKNESS of the individual in the Modernist world (i.e. isolation and loss of identity). What do you think?
-
I did not even address strength or weakness, mainly because I went against the question claiming that the personal reflection doubled as a social commentary, through a provision of insight.
I don't know though.
-
Overall gys i just wanted to say a huge , huge ,huge thankyou to you guys honestly your efforts are much appreciated I hope that i too soon can start helping aha probs in the more mathy sciency sort of areas .
But honestly thanks heaps :) :) :) :) ;) ;) ;) :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
So happy to have been helpful! We'd love for you to stick around through the exam period and beyond to help others out ;D
I don't know if I answered the mod B question properly (Cloudstreet). My whole argument was that ordinary people have the power to change their weaknesses to strengths. let me know what you guys think ?
Did anyone do Wit and Donne for Mod A? How valid is arguing that love is portrayed through ones love for life in one of the paragraphs haha? I did love in relationships for the other 2 paras.
Anyone spare any comments on my approaches? Thoughts? Words of wisdom? Glad it's over but sort of ambivalent as to how I responded.
All sound good to me guys! Don't worry about it, exam is done now!! ;D
guys!!! so they obviously chose the poem for us... but the thing is I didn't study much for the chosen poem! 'journey of the magi.' anyway, do you know how it said 'at least one other poem' i did two more, because i didnt know much about the chosen poem. will i lose marks? but i wrote about them all in an equal level!
That is definitely okay! I did the same when they specified in my year and went fine! :)
I seriously can not stop overthinking about this exam. . .
Mod B- Whoever else did ts eliot, how did you approach the strength/ weakness? I discussed how the STRENGTH of his poetry lies in his ability to use the voice to reflect the Modernist individual's distressed psyche, and ultimately the WEAKNESS of the individual in the Modernist world (i.e. isolation and loss of identity). What do you think?
This sounds like a good approach to me! ;D
-
So definitely a very weird, but very interesting exam. Thanks for accommodating this rant, just getting started here but happy to share my thoughts :)
I agree with @soy5, I definitely needed that five minutes reading time to think through how to approach each of the questions, they were worded horrendously but could be understood if you broke them down enough. Eventually I wrote in the order C, A, B simply because I was most to least prepared like that.
My responding to the questions wasn't actually too bad. But I feel like what will screw me over is that I was writing slow > running out of time > which resulted in writing not so much (my responses were between 4-6 pages).
Module A - Metropolis and 1984 - this was a good question for me, basically the focus of my practised essay was on leaders of totalitarian societies abusing their power to oppress and control, and the importance of human relationships in sustaining human existence. I compared the use of physical oppression in Metropolis with use of psychological oppression in 1984.
Module B - T.S. Eliot - OMG JOURNEY OF THE MAGI...so this was the one poem that, for some reason, I hadn't prepared very well for. Did some extremely light revision and readover of the poem in the morning and somehow managed to scrape through with a good argument about Eliot's personal reflection of religion. I compared this with Prufrock and his wider social commentary about ambiguity around relationships and identity. Obviously I linked the "personal voices" to his use of Prufrock and the Magi to speak and connect with his audience in a relatable way. And then I said that both aspects (personal reflection and wider social commentary) are what makes T.S. Eliot's poetry everlasting, so the fact that he privileges personal reflection is both a STRENGTH and a WEAKNESS. What a HELL of a question.
Module C - The Art of Travel - this question was actually pretty good. Our school's trial question was eerily similar, talking about "positive and negative" aspects of the relationship between people and landscapes, and this one was talking about "enriching and uneasy" aspects. So my prepared essay fit almost perfectly. I talked about how some aspects of travelling individuals' experiences of landscapes can be enriching to their understandings, whereas others can be "uneasy" because they are limited by the personal traits they bring with them. Only upsetting part is that I took a bit too long on this response because I forgot a few of de Botton's quotes! xD
Overall, I think this was definitely harder than Paper 1 in terms of depth and complexity (and obviously the need to write three essays in two hours). But I am expecting to get about the same in both, so let's just wait and see :)
Hope everyone else went well - and for those who didn't, keep your hopes up, remember 2 units of English only make up 20% of your aggregate :D
Excited to get onto all of my other subjects!!
-
Mod A- Julius Caesar and The Prince we had to talk about manipulation so I talked in one paragraph about how rulers can manipulate their appearance and then did a second paragraph about morality and did a kinda weak link to the question by saying that manipulation is immoral oops
Mod B- Citizen Kane a weird question but not as specific as I feared. I talked about how Kane valued personal control and wealth over emotion and how his downfall refutes the American Dream and continues to be relevant to society. I said that the weakness was a lack of emotional engagement in the audience but this was also its strength because its a reflection of how pursuing power and wealth leads to a lack of fulfillment but I don't know if I got this across very clearly
Mod C- I really liked, didn't write as much as I hoped though. I said that Brave New World and my ORT use textual forms and features as the means available to them to argue for freedom in preference to totalitarianism and individuality in preference to stability.
I feel so much better now that English is done!! I don't have another exam until Monday!
I took that same exact approach for module A lolz I think we're okay
-
guys!!! so they obviously chose the poem for us... but the thing is I didn't study much for the chosen poem! 'journey of the magi.' anyway, do you know how it said 'at least one other poem' i did two more, because i didnt know much about the chosen poem. will i lose marks? but i wrote about them all in an equal level!
Hey! To you, and anyone else freaking out about not including the prescribed poem enough within their exam, little anecdote that will hopefully calm you're nerves aha.
I did TS Eliot last year, and the only poem I didn't study was Hollow Men.
Guess what the prescribed poem was.
Hollow Men.
I knew only one quote from the entire thing, and that quote was: "prickly pear". That was it. Couldn't remember anything else. So I analysed the shit out of that one quote in one of my paragraphs, analysed the title in another, and then just focused on my other poems for the rest of the essay (Prufrock and Magi I believe! But it may have been Rhapsody... can't 100% remember).
And I still ended up getting a band 6 :) So don't worry yourselves too much - if I could literally go into the exam and just write a full essay on spiky pears and still come out with an overall good mark, I'm sure that all of you are absolutely fine :) Remember that it wasn't just a hard question for you, it was a hard question for everyone, so scaling and moderation will fix it all up if something did go a bit wrong!
-
I've got very mixed feelings about this paper. The Mod C People and Landscapes question was beautiful and really easy to manipulate. So was the Mod A Metropolis/1984 question but I had a little freak out on the leadership bit so I just talked about leadership through oppression and how German audiences desired strong and stable leaders unlike the leaders that they had during the Weimar epoch. Essentially I talked about Maria as a leader and juxtaposed this to RoboMaria, Big Brother as a leader with allusions to Stalin, and Fredersen as an oppressive dictator who redeems himself over the course of the film to become a more understanding leader. The Hamlet question was the worst. I barely talked about dramatic form other than soliloquies but I was able to quote 3 critics word for word. I'm not sure how helpful that'll be for marks but oh well. I'll (hopefully) never have to write another Discovery essay/creative or a Shakespeare essay ever again. But hey you guys, WE DID IT!!! WE FINISHED ENGLISH!!! (except for you extension people, my condolences)
-
Mod A - 1984 and Metropolis - good
Mod B - WB Yeats - even better
Mod C - Art of Travel - scintillating form
-
Mod A - 1984 and Metro was a straightforward question once you got your head around leadership and what it entails
Mod B - Not too bad honestly, I mainly linked the strengths of Hamlet to it's enduring value and how his introspection allows his dilemma to resonate with a contemporary audience
Mod C - People and Politics was taken straight from the rubric - competing perspectives. Would've been nice to have some more direct quotes, but I'd say I went decent overall
-
Mod A - inferiority was okay hopefully my essay was good
Mod B - so many parts of the question I hope I addressed them all. Some analysis may seem very bsed because it was, and lots of people didn't prepare for among school children, I didn't see how it fit in the question but hopefully I bsed it well.
Mod C - dodgy words like contest and battle which I tried to include in my essay without being colloquial so hopefully it worked.
-
Tbh, I'm disappointed about the exam. I went in feeling confident and walked out feeling unsure and uncertain (discoveries can be confronting and provocative amrite ;)). Seeing as English is my best subject, I expected better and I achieved nowhere near what I aimed for.
:(
-
Hahaha, for my grade, it was the total opposite!! You could hear the collective groans and laughter when we all realised that Sadat was specified. It was like everyone's hearts broke just a little bit more LOL
Ahhh so sorry to hear that! But I totally get it, I was the same for a while because I had so much trouble understanding it, but I just had a hunch that it would be specified :P
-
I've got very mixed feelings about this paper. The Mod C People and Landscapes question was beautiful and really easy to manipulate. So was the Mod A Metropolis/1984 question but I had a little freak out on the leadership bit so I just talked about leadership through oppression and how German audiences desired strong and stable leaders unlike the leaders that they had during the Weimar epoch. Essentially I talked about Maria as a leader and juxtaposed this to RoboMaria, Big Brother as a leader with allusions to Stalin, and Fredersen as an oppressive dictator who redeems himself over the course of the film to become a more understanding leader. The Hamlet question was the worst. I barely talked about dramatic form other than soliloquies but I was able to quote 3 critics word for word. I'm not sure how helpful that'll be for marks but oh well. I'll (hopefully) never have to write another Discovery essay/creative or a Shakespeare essay ever again. But hey you guys, WE DID IT!!! WE FINISHED ENGLISH!!! (except for you extension people, my condolences)
I was exactly the same with leadership! I just wasn't expecting that choice of word so I went straight to oppression too. It was hard to not get too caught up with just the way they led but it sounds like you made nice links. The 'leadership' was pretty open to talk about government and leaders of rebellion. And yes, my paragraph about dramatic function was pretty unconvincing 😂
-
Mod A - Metro/ 1984 I was able to mould my memorised essay
Mod B - Yeats - Hard question but i think i answered it
Mod C - Biggest fuck up my, related didn't answer the question - i misinterpreted the question and showed in all my paragraphs how relationships with people and landscapes can be both enriching as well as uneasy, is this okay? Also in my related i only showed enriching nature of relationships but i kinda clumsily included uneasiness will i get marked down heaps because i know i screwed my related paragraphs up pretty bad
-
I think I did ok (?). I certainly did better in trials, so I'm hoping for like a high Band 4 - low Band 5 (my standards aren't very high.)
The JC/Machiavelli question was absolutely PERFECT for my thesis, so I was extremely excited. Yeats kind of threw me off, but I was able to get back on track eventually. That was probably my worst section. The Crucible was...ok? I didn't really understand the question, so I kind of just manipulated it to what I wanted it to be. Sounds bad, but it wasn't as dodgy as that sounded, lmao.
-
So many people I knew didn't go back over Sadat in their study because they either hated it, or thought that NESA wouldn't specify it because it's the first text in the list. I hope they ended up ok! ::)
Yeah, that was basically my grade! We all hated Sadat, mainly because of how long the speech was and because it was one of the last ones we studied after the Trials, so most of us weren't bothered to flick back and revise it.
Ahhh so sorry to hear that! But I totally get it, I was the same for a while because I had so much trouble understanding it, but I just had a hunch that it would be specified :P
Lots of people predicted that there wouldn't be a specified poem this year? Based on the previous years' patterns and stuff, but honestly NESA can do whatever and I doubt they really follow a pattern. I thought Atwood would've been specified but nope, it had to be Sadat (:
Oh awesome! Great minds think alike ;D
Which speech did you use to supplement Sadat? I wonder how common our thesis was ::)
Hopefully our great minds got us great marks too!! ((: I used Keating's Redfern Speech, mainly because it's one of my favourites haha. Which one did you use?
-
For Mod C- It talked about a contest
So does it kinda mean a "battle" to undermine competing perspectives as to control the personal perspective of the audience as the "spoils" of a "contest"
-
For Mod C- It talked about a contest
So does it kinda mean a "battle" to undermine competing perspectives as to control the personal perspective of the audience as the "spoils" of a "contest"
You can definitely frame it in that sense ;D
-
Think i did well apart from mod B Hamlet- in the rush of the exam i kind of forgot to address that strength/weakness part, but did answer the other parts of the question quite well
I did talk about how it resonates with audiences and exposes the frailties of human nature, I guess that could be strength/weakness but did not explicitly mention it, so silly.......
How much do you think this will affect my mark?
-
Think i did well apart from mod B Hamlet- in the rush of the exam i kind of forgot to address that strength/weakness part, but did answer the other parts of the question quite well
I did talk about how it resonates with audiences and exposes the frailties of human nature, I guess that could be strength/weakness but did not explicitly mention it, so silly.......
How much do you think this will affect my mark?
Sounds like you did well on the whole! Put it into perspective, it might be a couple of marks, for one essay, in one paper, in one subject. Soooo inconsequential. It isn't going to affect your mark in any significant way so I wouldn't be worried at all ;D
-
I am such a bloody idiot. . . I just realised that in my mod c essay I was going on about bloody conflicting perspectives and you're not meant to do that because thats the old syllabus! But competing is kind of like conflicting? Oh sheeet what have I done
-
I am such a bloody idiot. . . I just realised that in my mod c essay I was going on about bloody conflicting perspectives and you're not meant to do that because thats the old syllabus! But competing is kind of like conflicting? Oh sheeet what have I done
It honestly overlaps a fair bit hey!! I wouldn't worry about it, I reckon it would still relate to the question quite nicely ;D