ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English & EAL => Topic started by: My name aint bob on August 26, 2012, 11:14:41 am
-
hey everyone, iv been having this problem which is making me tear my hair out, when your discussing your text as part of your essay, is there anything specific that the paragraph actually meant to contain? i always end up trying to show off my knowledge of the text and turning it into a text response by accident. also is what happened in the book itself that important? or is it meant to be less whats in the book and more what the author was trying to show when he wrote it?
-
For me it's the opposite, I always really need to think about what evidence I can give from the book. I like writing context in that way, that I don't feel this need of retelling the story so much, which is why my text response tends to be a bit of a text summary at some points of the paragraphs.
-
OH MY GOD I ALWAYS DO THAT! :P
I think you have to show how the ideas in the text support the prompt. Like, my prompt is 'conflict is a result of fear' and I'm talking about how in The Crucible, Tituba lied about seeing someone with the devil due to fear of punishment, how the girls lied out of fear of being punished (and out of jealousy), how John was afraid to confess his adultery due to fear of ruining his good name, showing that a lot of the conflict (the hysteria, the trials, the blame game) all stemmed from fear.
...just a little example for you but I totally understand where you are coming from because I do that all of the time.
-
Analysis of texts in context is different from analysis of texts in text response essays. The difference is that in context, the author's view isn't so important as what we can take from it. In text response, an analysis that doesn't stem from the author is wrong. In context, you are free to take something in a text and analyse as you deem relevant for the point you are trying to make. As such, in context, your ideas are being prompted by the example. You only quote because you are showing the reader what the image/motif/trope/ word choice the text specifically uses, so that when you broaden out to your interpretation, you are doing so in a relevant way. The key in context is to take the language of a text and broaden it into general ideas on conflict/ identity and belonging/ landscapes.
As an example:
For text :"To be or not to be establishes Hamlet's view that X. X is indicative of what Shakespeare is contending in this play".
For context: "To be or not to be establishes the universal desire to question our own identity. While Shakespeare paints this as X, it is applicable as a general conception of the human condition in Y".
The point I am making through the above example is that in context, you analyse broader than the author. In a way, what the author thinks or even intends isn't that important (but be careful with this). For example, you could say that while an author uses a metaphor to mean something particular in the scope of the text, it can be understood to apply to modern day life in general.
What gets you marks in context essays is how you interpret and use evidence from sources. The focus here is on you. Your ideas. The quotations evidence what you are saying but it is up to you to apply this and reinterpret it.
I'm extremely tired after an exhausting day, and I realise the difference between textual analysis in context and text may not have been explained in the clearest or most detailed way I could have So sorry about that. You can send me a context paragraph where you aren't sure you are using quotations properly, and when I'm fresh I will happily respond with constructive criticisms.