English LIT or LANG?

[bakacchis]

I was just wondering if you guys could offer your opinion on English Literature and Language and refer to your experiences, regarding which one is easier, which one is more rewarding etc.

My English ability is alright, I guess. I'd say my writing is proficient enough but I'm not very good at deep thinking and analysis so are there any tips for improving this? Do I just have to read a lot or is it much more than that?

Thanks!

[literally lauren]

I did English and Lit so can't personally vouch for EngLang so most of this will be from a Lit perspective:

tl:dr; if you don't like deep thinking and analysis, you'll hate Literature.

All of the course is geared towards set texts, and right away if you aren't interested in them then you'll probably have a pretty boring year. I was lucky enough to get two in Year 12 that were okay, but the others were a total slog and it made the SACs even tougher to get through. Moreover, since the analysis centred around your own personal interpretation, you had to do a lot of thinking in and out of class constructing your views and learning how to express them.

I should say that Lit is still my favourite VCE subject in spite of some of its more poorly organised (/useless) SACs, and in general if you 'like' English and essay writing, you will enjoy Lit even if some parts of the course may annoy you. It's seen as more difficult than mainstream English (primarily because it attracts English-inclined people and is therefore more competitive) but I'd say it's probably on par with Englang; they're just difficult in their own ways.

Both subjects involve and understanding of how language creates meaning, but where in Literature you're dealing with how the author creates meaning in a narrative or textual sense, Englang is more about the features of language utterance and how changes in language result in changes in meaning.

There are some really good guides in their respective sub-boards if you're interested: Literature and Englang.

Also, a post from a few months ago:

I'm angling this towards what I know so far of the new study designs, since as Emma noted, they will have changed by the time you're in Year 12.

English: fairly standard, will be the closest thing to what you've done throughout high school. Language Analysis (writing about newspaper articles and persuasion) is largely unchanged with the exception of a few guidelines and requirements. You'll do a Text Response essay (writing about a book or film you've studied in response to a prompt) as well as a creative response to the text. The third section involves a comparative essay which I'm afraid I can't shed much light on because it's a totally new thing that hasn't been explained properly yet Hopefully some more resources will crop up towards the end of next year.

From a pragmatic perspective, the big advantage of English is that the cohort is more evenly spread. Since doing one English is compulsory, and most schools only offer mainstream English, you'll be on the same bell curve as people who are borderline illiterate. English is also general speaking, easier to do well in, not only because of the amount of resources that are available, but because of how the course is structured. Things are always geared towards the exam, and how you write throughout the year is usually a pretty good indication of your skillset.


Literature: is for English nerds. That may sound exclusive or pretentious, but it's a subject that suits English nerds more than anyone. Unless you enjoy the idea of analysing and writing essays, stay clear.
I've tried to decipher the new study design, and first impressions would seem to suggest it's the same as the current one. So a major difference between Eng and Lit is that out of the five SACs you have for Lit, only one is even remotely similar to the format of the exam.

English Language: often regarded as the 'science-y' English, this subject is geared towards a more diagnostic deconstruction of words and linguistic devices, so it has a reputation for being popular with people who don't enjoy the vagueness of regular English tasks and essays. That said, this essay won't necessarily have clear answers for everything, and you're still expected to develop a flare for commenting on how language is used, making it arguably more challenging that standard English. I haven't done Englang myself so I can't comment much more beyond this, maybe someone else can jump in.

Suffice it to say that your enjoyment of each subject will be more important than any inherent advantage/disadvantage that others have found in their studies.

Most schools will help you out during the process of subject selection and offer you some information about everything your school offers. You could also ask people in the years above you what their impressions are (at least for Lit and Englang) about the teachers and the workload, since there's a lot of variance between schools.

With regards to improving ability in general, I suppose it depends on what you regard as 'deep analysis.' Are you unable to go into sufficient depth analysing something in isolation? Or can you do bits and pieces really well, but aren't able to find a common thread to link all your points together and have them be 'deep' overall?

[bakacchis]

Wow, thanks for taking the time to reply in all that detail!

I wouldn't say I dislike deep thinking and analysis, but Lit seems really intimidating right now, haha. I'm guessing that a lot of time needs to be invested into Lit, in comparison to Lang? Also, do all of the English's make you do 5 SACs each throughout the year?

The thing is, in English class I find it quite difficult to put forward something in discussions and such, not because I'm reluctant to raise my hand, it's more like I can't really think of anything constructive to say. I think I'm just generally weak at analysis overall - thinking about hidden themes and motifs etc. Some of the time I literally just sparknotes everything. Would you say this is because I don't have enough exposure to books, news, media? I think I just need to go that one step further to really REALLY analyse but I'm not sure what I should do.

One of my friends is extremely talented at critical thinking when it comes to English and the ideas in her essays are always expressed so clearly. Apparently it comes all naturally to her. Ahhh, honestly can't say how jealous I am.

[literally lauren]

I wouldn't say I dislike deep thinking and analysis, but Lit seems really intimidating right now, haha. I'm guessing that a lot of time needs to be invested into Lit, in comparison to Lang? Also, do all of the English's make you do 5 SACs each throughout the year?

The amount of time required in each subject is dependent on your strengths and confidence; if you grasp concepts quickly and only need to be told things once, then you probably won't have to spend hours pouring over notes or churning out essays. Whereas, if you consider yourself as having poor memory or repeatedly making the same mistakes, then it might be necessary to invest mroe time in your study.

On the whole, a lot of the 'work' we got for Year 11 and 12 Lit was to 'think about >something.<' Towards the end of class our teacher would conclude a point like '...and so this characters' motivations are a little murkier than we may have thought at first glance. Have a think about that for homework' ...and of course the class titters 'yep, sure, we'll spend all night contemplating these deep questions sir'
Really though, most of the high scoring Lit kids I know were ones who genuinely did think about and engage with their texts- perhaps not to the point of contemplating it at every available opportunity, but certainly had discussions outside of class or researched interesting questions.

One of my teachers said most subjects are as hard as you make them. If you treat Lit like a difficult chore that you have no interest in or proclivity for, then you're gonna have a bad time. But if you see it as an opportunity to say some unique and interesting stuff about a text you find provocative then Lit as a subject will let you do that too.


Lit has 5 SACs; English technically has 6 though one of these is an oral presentation that isn't worth much; not sure about Englang and cbf trawling through the Study Design so maybe someone else can jump in, but I'm pretty sure it'd be 5 as well.

The thing is, in English class I find it quite difficult to put forward something in discussions and such, not because I'm reluctant to raise my hand, it's more like I can't really think of anything constructive to say. I think I'm just generally weak at analysis overall - thinking about hidden themes and motifs etc. Some of the time I literally just sparknotes everything. Would you say this is because I don't have enough exposure to books, news, media? I think I just need to go that one step further to really REALLY analyse but I'm not sure what I should do.

By all means use sparknotes as a starting point, but that shouldn't be where your analysis finishes. You know why sparknotes is so well known even though it's predominately geared towards the American education system? It's because their analyses are broad enough to apply to whatever essay you're writing - you can just insert their discussion and most English teachers will give you credit for it.
Original discussion doesn't have to be completely innovative - no assessor is expecting an essay that blows their mind and shakes their world view to its core. You just have to talk about the prompt or the text in an interesting way. So when it comes to forming your interpretation of the characters, see if you can ask a whole bunch of questions before you set out to answer them. Using Romeo & Juliet as an example because everyone knows that play
- Are the lovers to blame for the tragedy?
- What attracts Romeo to Juliet and vice versa? --> do they want each other for the same reasons?
- Are they truly in love?
- What is the significance of the family feud?
- Does the Montague/Capulet reconciliation at the play's end seem legitimate, or will the fighting continue?
- Do we side with one family more than another?
- What makes certain characters (un)sympathetic?
- Are any of the characters truly innocent?
This might seem kind of directionless at first, but it's a starting point. If you need more structure, you could do this scene-by-scene or chapter-by-chapter as a means of extending your thoughts beyond simple summary or basic, general analysis.

A little exercise you might find helpful...

This is also something I've posted before in the QandA thread but I'm lazy so whatevs~~

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 subjects (mainly 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, the answer that I have written up at home is over 2000 words long, and that's all without reference to the excerpt came from

Read this once you've thought about it

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 get to 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.

Again, this is all Lit-geared, so hopefully someone else will be better able to address and Englang questions if needed

[C.A.T]

I'm currently doing yr 12 Eng Lang and will do yr 12 Lit next year (I did both yr 11 subjects last year). I always thought I'd prefer literature but honestly English Language is much more suited to me. It all depends what you're interested in. I'd look up the study design for both on the VCAA website.

English Language is heavily based on the dynamics of language, how it evolves, how children develop language abilities, formal and informal language and how language represents your identity, culture, educational background, religion, age, location, etc. Be prepared to learn all about word classes (verb, noun, adjective, etc) and the subsystems of language (phonetics/phonology, discourse....). There is a lot of metalanguage - particularly in year 12. If you find language itself interesting, you'll like this subject (particularly if you're learning another language). I think this subject works well for people who are very logical and prefer math and science but still like English - without analysing novels (don't get me wrong you still have to analyse text in English Language but it's different).

Literature is (as you can guess) all about analysing literature. This can be a bit difficult if you don't like the texts (I didn't). I can't vouch for all schools but at mine we watched several movies and our classes were heavily focused on class discussion. You really need to be able to develop a deep understanding of texts studied and create secure and fluent essays on them. Literature is probably more aimed at people who enjoy and do well at core English and humanities subjects.

English language gets marked up more than Literature, however this doesn't mean anything if you're not willing to put the effort in to do well in it. You can still get a higher mark in Lit if you try hard enough.