Practicing close analysis

[charmanderp]

Time to start thinking about the literature exam, which as you will soon find out is all about close analysis. Reading between the lines and asking yourself 'why did the author/poet/playwright use language in this way to say that?'

There's a certain technique to close analysis which you'll come to develop through practice. What we'll try to get going here is have people post paragraphs and excerpts of writing and we'll criticise them and see what can be improved in terms of expression, etc.

[Lolly]

I have to write another one in coming days; when I'm finished I'll post it here. I'd love to get some criticism.

[Lolly]

So here's just something I cooked up: ( analysing Hamlet Act I Scene 5, 40 -97, Act 3 scene 2 169-205) typed up from handwritten essay

The breakdown of the Natural Order in Denmark is presented to us with Biblical metaphor, drawing parallel to the main narrative.  "Sleeping within (his) "orchard", King Hamlet is "by a brother's hand...dispatched", akin to Cain's murder of murder of Abel in the Garden of Eden. The ensuing corruption of Denmark and "the cess of majesty" is reflected in Hamlet's description of a world "weary, stale flat and unprofitable", likening the demise of a former paradise to "an unweeded garden...rank and gross in nature." Similarly, the Ghost's lament condemns the condition of a state "disjoint and out of frame", with imagery of corruptive agents volatile and invasive to the purity of the Natural Order. "Cursed Hebenon" holds "enmity to blood of man", just as the forces of darkness pervading Denmark are hostile to life. This conjugation of binarily opposed entities is manifested in the marriage of Claudius and Gertrude -"lust, to a celestial angel linked". Thus, Gertrude is portrayed as the Eve of Denmark, "jointress this warlike state" seduced by the serpentine "witchcraft" and "traitorous gifts" of an "adulterate beast".

The emblematic use of stagecraft in Passage Two reflects  the state of Denmark, the player queen's proclamations providing discrepancy to the exterior plot.   Gertrude's response "The lady doth protest too much methinks"  negates "if once a widow ever I be wife, providing commentary on the Court's amoral complacency. Hamlet's play serves as polemic to implicate Gertrude's "incestuous' marriage", a mysogynistic comment on women's emotional vicissitude, " 'tis brief... as women's love". However, the playlet also ironically comments on Hamlet's own impulsive nature. "Purpose is slave to memory", just as Hamlet's quest is jaded by its "violent birth"  in a cataclysmic, supernatural event. Bound by filial obligation, and "remembrance" of his father, Hamlet must "lead..fortune" with "love", his "antic disposition" defying social sensibilities and reason. His purpose is obfuscated by outbursts of passion, resulting in the fluctuation of his resolve, just as his emotions are ephemeral and passing. However, this is reflective of the Hamlet's environment, in the midst of radical social and political upheaval; a corrupt world that comfortably places opposing sentiments side by side. "Grief joys, joy grieves, "mirth in funeral, dirge in marriage. This "violent" contrast of ideas, as "our wills and fates do so "contrary" run" ultimately leads to Hamlet's demise, as his will succumbs to his fated death, "our thoughts are ours, their ends none their own".

eep.

[EvangelionZeta]

So here's just something I cooked up: ( analysing Hamlet Act I Scene 5, 40 -97, Act 3 scene 2 169-205) typed up from handwritten essay

The breakdown of the Natural Order in Denmark is presented to us with Biblical metaphor, drawing parallel to the main narrative.  "Sleeping within (his) "orchard", King Hamlet is "by a brother's hand...dispatched", akin to Cain's murder of murder of Abel in the Garden of Eden. The ensuing corruption of Denmark and "the cess of majesty" is reflected in Hamlet's description of a world "weary, stale flat and unprofitable", likening the demise of a former paradise to "an unweeded garden...rank and gross in nature." Similarly, the Ghost's lament condemns the condition of a state "disjoint and out of frame", with imagery of corruptive agents volatile and invasive to the purity of the Natural Order. "Cursed Hebenon" holds" enmity to blood of man", just as the forces of darkness pervading Denmark are hostile to life. This conjugation of binarily opposed entities is manifested in the marriage of Claudius and Gertrude -"lust, to a celestial angel linked". Thus, Gertrude is portrayed as the Eve of Denmark, "jointress this warlike state" seduced by the serpentine "witchcraft" and "traitorous gifts" of an "adulterate beast".

The emblematic use of stagecraft in Passage Two reflects  the state of Denmark, the player queen's proclamations providing discrepancy to the exterior plot.   Gertrude's response "The lady doth protest too much methinks"  negates "if once a widow ever I be wife, providing commentary on the Court's amoral complacency. Hamlet's play serves as polemic to implicate Gertrude's "incestuous' marriage", a mysogynistic comment on women's emotional vicissitude, " 'tis brief... as women's love". However, the playlet also ironically comments on Hamlet's own impulsive nature. "Purpose is slave to memory", just as Hamlet's quest is jaded by its "violent birth"  in a cataclysmic, supernatural event. Bound by filial obligation, and "remembrance" of his father, Hamlet must "lead..fortune" with love", his "antic disposition" defying social sensibilities and reason. His purpose is obfuscated by outbursts of passion, resulting in the fluctuation of his resolve, just as his emotions are ephemeral and passing. However, this is reflective of the Hamlet's environment, in the midst of radical social and political upheaval; a corrupt world that comfortably places opposing sentiments side by side. "Grief joys, joy grieves, "mirth in funeral, dirge in marriage. This "violent" contrast of ideas, as "our wills and fates do so "contrary" run" ultimately lead to Hamlet's demise, as his will succumbs to his fated death, "our thoughts are ours, their ends none their own".

eep.

It's a little too bogged down in quotes; there are too many of them, and your constant integrated quoting just breaks the flow of your work.  Try to just signpost a language device and discuss it for a bit, even aim for just having 3-4 quotes max per paragraph to work with - this style is actually preferred in criticism.

I also think you could find much punchier readings to build towards than "Gertrude=Eve".  Think big with Hamlet - it's the most analysed text of all time for a reason, after all.

[Lolly]

Hmmm.
So give the interpretation a wider scope, right?  Avoid the cliche. Be inventive and original.

 I'll attempt to be more sparing with quotes. I've never been told that before, though.

Please keep the criticism coming.  Shoot me down.

[EvangelionZeta]

The overuse of quotes is a bad habit usually developed from the way they teach English in high school: if you read professional literary criticism, you'll often find that quotes are almost underused by VCE standards, and more credence is given to the critic's own analysis and discussion.  The reasoning behind this is that the audience wants to read YOUR work, and having your work being bogged down in the words of others limits the potential for your own language to shine through.  That, and you have to remember that quoting should always have a purpose - for instance, does your quoting of Shakespeare in "Thus, Gertrude is portrayed as the Eve of Denmark, "jointress this warlike state" seduced by the serpentine "witchcraft" and "traitorous gifts" of an "adulterate beast"." add anything to your analysis?

[Lolly]

I suppose not. Now you put it that way, I see how unseemly it is trying to jam in as many quotes as possible into a sentence.

if you read professional literary criticism, you'll often find that quotes are almost underused by VCE standards, and more credence is given to the critic's own analysis and discussion.

That's useful to know. I'll definitely look into more professional criticism but this leaves me with a problem. If I'm ever getting out of highschool alive, I have to play the game. I'm being guided and assessed by VCE standards. The examiners

teach English in high school

My teachers influence the way I write, yet

The overuse of quotes is a bad habit

How do you win?? In any case I'm presuming that the examiners will look more favourably on clutter free prose, right?

 I'm overthinking. You've stumped me. I need to rework this entire essay but I don't know how to continue in the right way. I have start from ground level again.

Good. I'm learning.

I'll try again and post here.

[EvangelionZeta]

I suppose not. Now you put it that way, I see how unseemly it is trying to jam in as many quotes as possible into a sentence.

if you read professional literary criticism, you'll often find that quotes are almost underused by VCE standards, and more credence is given to the critic's own analysis and discussion.

That's useful to know. I'll definitely look into more professional criticism but this leaves me with a problem. If I'm ever getting out of highschool alive, I have to play the game. I'm being guided and assessed by VCE standards. The examiners

teach English in high school

My teachers influence the way I write, yet

The overuse of quotes is a bad habit

How do you win?? In any case I'm presuming that the examiners will look more favourably on clutter free prose, right?

 I'm overthinking. You've stumped me. I need to rework this entire essay but I don't know how to continue in the right way. I have start from ground level again.

Good. I'm learning.

I'll try again and post here.

It's not so much that teachers endorse that style so much as the way English is taught subconsciously makes kids write in that style, if you catch my drift.  Although, examiners CAN be tricky - beating the examiners is all a part of doing well...

[ggxoxo]

Indeed, Gurov’s critical tone as he describes ‘that there’s something pathetic’ about Anna Sergeyevna, alludes to Chekhov’s neurotic portrayal of the female gender, thus rendering finding love a difficult task. The constant uses of dashes in Gurov’s thoughts, amalgamated with a repetition of ‘he remembered’, while he contemplates his day with Anna Sergeyevna, highlights the confusion and obsession that Anna has sparked in him. This idea is extended in passage two with Startsev’s resigned tone in: ‘I’m so exhausted I can barely stand’, illustrating how he endured the menacing environment of the cemetery with the ‘darkness of the autumn night’ and the imposing ‘shadows of the trees’ to wait for his beloved. The scene sparks a tone of pathos as Chekhov foreshadows how this was all Yekaterina’s ‘terrible joke’; the reference that it was ‘one of her little games’ later in the text, produces a mocking tenor emphasising the power of females over the male’s mind, as Yekaterina toys with Startsev’s insecurities for her pleasure. Such is, nevertheless, further surveyed in passage one, where the juxtaposition of the ‘echoing peals of [Barbara’s] laughter’ and ‘[Belikov] lay down, never to rise again’ emphasises that Barbara’s emasculation of Belikov by ‘bursting into fits of laughter’ at his misfortune caused him to fall into a state of depression: ‘looking gloomy, frowning and sighing deeply’.  These show Chekhov’s conviction that women have dominance in love and, hence, can ultimately cause the death of their male counterparts.

[EvangelionZeta]

Indeed, Gurov’s critical tone as he describes ‘that there’s something pathetic’ about Anna Sergeyevna, alludes to Chekhov’s neurotic portrayal of the female gender, thus rendering finding love a difficult task. The constant uses of dashes in Gurov’s thoughts, amalgamated with a repetition of ‘he remembered’, while he contemplates his day with Anna Sergeyevna, highlights the confusion and obsession that Anna has sparked in him. This idea is extended in passage two with Startsev’s resigned tone in: ‘I’m so exhausted I can barely stand’, illustrating how he endured the menacing environment of the cemetery with the ‘darkness of the autumn night’ and the imposing ‘shadows of the trees’ to wait for his beloved. The scene sparks a tone of pathos as Chekhov foreshadows how this was all Yekaterina’s ‘terrible joke’; the reference that it was ‘one of her little games’ later in the text, produces a mocking tenor emphasising the power of females over the male’s mind, as Yekaterina toys with Startsev’s insecurities for her pleasure. Such is, nevertheless, further surveyed in passage one, where the juxtaposition of the ‘echoing peals of [Barbara’s] laughter’ and ‘[Belikov] lay down, never to rise again’ emphasises that Barbara’s emasculation of Belikov by ‘bursting into fits of laughter’ at his misfortune caused him to fall into a state of depression: ‘looking gloomy, frowning and sighing deeply’.  These show Chekhov’s conviction that women have dominance in love and, hence, can ultimately cause the death of their male counterparts.

Read some of your sentences out loud - your writing has a tendency to bit bogged down in clunkiness.  Your final sentence also sounds a bit lame - again, read it out loud.

[ggxoxo]

Lol- thanks; I tried so hard trying to figure out what to put in the paragraph that I forgot about proper expression :p But apart from awkward sentences, do I need to add anything else, like more views and values? Or more analysis?

Sorry can you also elaborate on 'clunkiness'?

OMG sorry for the added post; but you know how teachers normally say you don't need to write an introduction BUT if you do it should just be like a normal body paragraph... my question is if an intro=just another body paragraph, do we, in theory, have 5 body paragraph+conclusion? Or is there a distinct difference between intro and body paragraph in a close analysis?

[EvangelionZeta]

Lol- thanks; I tried so hard trying to figure out what to put in the paragraph that I forgot about proper expression :p But apart from awkward sentences, do I need to add anything else, like more views and values? Or more analysis?

Sorry can you also elaborate on 'clunkiness'?

OMG sorry for the added post; but you know how teachers normally say you don't need to write an introduction BUT if you do it should just be like a normal body paragraph... my question is if an intro=just another body paragraph, do we, in theory, have 5 body paragraph+conclusion? Or is there a distinct difference between intro and body paragraph in a close analysis?

Hard to judge unless I see a full essay re: first one, and unfornately I'm obliged not to look at full essays for non-students.

Clunkiness as in it sounds awkward.  Take this sentence, for instance: "Such is, nevertheless, further surveyed in passage one, where the juxtaposition of the ‘echoing peals of [Barbara’s] laughter’ and ‘[Belikov] lay down, never to rise again’ emphasises that Barbara’s emasculation of Belikov by ‘bursting into fits of laughter’ at his misfortune caused him to fall into a state of depression: ‘looking gloomy, frowning and sighing deeply’."

And honestly it's up to you.  I didn't have an introduction or a conclusion - just went for straight analysis throughout.

[Lolly]

So look, I tried again: (last one before tutoring with EZ, probably)

Passage one unveils the contradictions rife in Denmark facilitating the breakdown of the Natural Order. The dichotomy of "lust...to a radiant angel linked" is epitomised by the marriage of Claudius and Gertrude, who personify Denmark's instability through the forced conjugation of binary opposites; from this, a warlike state, bent on self destruction, can only result.  Moreover, the division in Hamlet's mind is symptomatic of this social and political pandemonium,. The playlet's amplified verse "our wills and fates do so contrary run" reflects the conflict between Hamlet's purpose and predestination as he struggles to extricate himself from the duopoly of Denmark. Bound in filial obligation to both remembrance and revenge of his father he finds himself working at odds with his destiny, his erratic behaviour and vacillation the result of being torn between opposing forces. Only through Hamlet's alignment of  both purpose and fate, as he paradoxically embraces life by accepting death, can his inner conflict truly be resolved.

The rhyming couplet "...if ever I be a wife" incriminates Gertrude in its discrepancy from the external plot, thus reinforcing the revealing nature of mimetic art. The highfalutin verse of the playlet mirrors the outward narrative, projecting the intrinsically reflexive nature of Hamlet's world, as well as the disorientation of its abstraction from reality. Hamlet's exclamation "If she should break it now!" momentarily blurs the distinction between theatre and audience, suspending the distance between pretence and actuality. This leaves us with a rather surrealistic impression: the imitative world of The Mousetrap is wrapped within Hamlet's own metaworld and moreover, this world of Hamlet is observed from our own, leaving us to question the credibility of apparent reality. Hamlet's declaration " I could be bounded in a nutshell..." affirms the infinite possibilities for both the scope and constriction of perception and, furthermore, that of deception and mimicry; reflecting the nightmare of facing a potentially absurd universe.

[EvangelionZeta]

So look, I tried again: (last one before tutoring with EZ, probably)

Passage one unveils the contradictions rife in Denmark facilitating the breakdown of the Natural Order. The dichotomy of "lust...to a radiant angel linked" is epitomised by the marriage of Claudius and Gertrude, who personify Denmark's instability through the forced conjugation of binary opposites; from this, a warlike state, bent on self destruction, can only result.  Moreover, the division in Hamlet's mind is symptomatic of this social and political pandemonium,. The playlet's amplified verse "our wills and fates do so contrary run" reflects the conflict between Hamlet's purpose and predestination as he struggles to extricate himself from the duopoly of Denmark. Bound in filial obligation to both remembrance and revenge of his father he finds himself working at odds with his destiny, his erratic behaviour and vacillation the result of being torn between opposing forces. Only through Hamlet's alignment of  both purpose and fate, as he paradoxically embraces life by accepting death, can his inner conflict truly be resolved.

The rhyming couplet "...if ever I be a wife" incriminates Gertrude in its discrepancy from the external plot, thus reinforcing the revealing nature of mimetic art. The highfalutin verse of the playlet mirrors the outward narrative, projecting the intrinsically reflexive nature of Hamlet's world, as well as the disorientation of its abstraction from reality. Hamlet's exclamation "If she should break it now!" momentarily blurs the distinction between theatre and audience, suspending the distance between pretence and actuality. This leaves us with a rather surrealistic impression: the imitative world of The Mousetrap is wrapped within Hamlet's own metaworld and moreover, this world of Hamlet is observed from our own, leaving us to question the credibility of apparent reality. Hamlet's declaration " I could be bounded in a nutshell..." affirms the infinite possibilities for both the scope and constriction of perception and, furthermore, that of deception and mimicry; reflecting the nightmare of facing a potentially absurd universe.

I'll talk about this in our first session :p

[emile_heskey]

First post on ATAR notes. This was a paragraph from my Frankenstein review analysis. Hope you like it. Might be a bit hard without the context of the reviews, but here goes:


Writing with the aid of time, Mary Thornburg is, not, like Jones, implicitly repulsed by the composition of Frankenstein. To appease seemingly the reader's uncertainty over genre, Thornburg places the work between the two categories of science fiction and Gothic sensibilities, introducing her readership to two sets of preconceived notions in which to focus on Frankenstein with. The critic is of the opinion that the framed narrative "amplifies" the narrative of the two main foci of the novel, Victor and his creation. Thorburg distances herself from any specific reading on the crux of the narrative's values, preferring to infer her opinions of the other critics. She decides Victor is driven by "agressive masculine ambition", as well as recognizing the "tragic dividness implicit in Victor's life". Indeed, Victor is a megalomaniacal being who has an almost Faustrian thirst knowledge, but his internal frustrations lie further towards the heart of a class rather than a gender struggle. Victor decides that his mother "possessed a mind of an uncommon mould" and indeed, to lift Elizabeth out of poverty, much in the same vein that Victor thought to re-animate the corpse of creature. Their frustration with "domestic gentility" in part drives them to pursue their projects with obsessive primality. Both "projects" started out as virtually blank canvasses; the creature an untouched mind, Elizabeth with the impressionability of a child, and thus Frankenstein is an exploration of familial role models and their part in composing the internalities of the soul. The monster is the lowest reflection of this, and as he is repulsed by the treatment of the DeLaceys by Safie's father, he realizes the irreconcilable class gap present in the society he lives in. He is regarded as sub-human, and he thus decides to close the innumerable class gap partly by wreaking havoc and destruction on the gentrified Elizabeth, who is the polar opposite to him, yet is a product of class in much the same he is.