VCE Stuff > VCE Literature

Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.

<< < (7/19) > >>

Coopha:
Arcadia by Tom Stoppard
Just wondering if I would be able to get some feedback on this essay. Thanks


Arcadia by Tom Stoppard examines the conflict between Classicist and Romanticist forms of thinking. Stoppard explores the question of whether each form of thinking can exist solitarily or if they can be melded together to exist in harmony.

Stoppard sets his play in two time periods. One is in 1809 and the other in the present day. It is in 1809 that the Enlightenment is yielding to Romanticism. The present day character of Hannah, a historical writer, regards this period as "the decline from thinking to feeling." At the same time in physics a few holes are beginning to appear in the balanced patterns discovered by Newton. In this time period of 1809 a young student named Thomasina longs for science to reach beyond the ordered regularity of geometric shapes and instead wants to tackle what is random and irregular such as the shape of a bluebell "if there is an equation for a curve like a bell than there must be an equation for one like a bluebell"

The idea of classicism and romanticism is a complex one. Stoppard has heightened the complexity and confusion of ideas by setting the play in the two different time periods. For instance, Thomasina deviates from the narrow road of mathematics into the unchartered territory of irregularity. In 1809 this school of thinking would have been regarded as Romantic. However in the present time period Valentine is following Thomasinas same method of maths but he is called a classicist. A new idea is always seen as irregular and disordered therefore romantic. However as time moves on everyone will hold this idea as a truth and it will be seen as ordered, reasonable and therefor classic. Stoppard wants his audience to question when the new modern will take over our own idea of "romantic" because today's classical was once romantic itself.

Stoppard uses characters in present day Sidley Park that embody either Romanticist or Classicist forms of thinking to demonstrate the conflict and chaos that can erupt as a result of these ideals colliding together. The present day character of Valentine is a classicist relying on order and equations to seek the independent truth. His counterpart is Bernard a Romanticist who jeers at Valentines quest for the abstract truth and argues that the process and journey of obtaining truth is more important than the the truth itself.     

In a heated discussion between Valentine and Bernard the crack between these two ideals becomes a ravine, an abyss as both characters represent their ideology as black and white. They are ideologues who stand by their way of thinking seeing no middle ground, closing the door to some truths.

Valentine sparks the heated discussion by directly challenging Bernard's idea that personalities are important in the scope of history. Valentine calls personalities trivial but discovery of the independent truth of higher importance.
 "What matters Is the calculus. Scientific progress. Knowledge." 
Bernard immediately rejects this theory saying " I can think of nothing more trivial than the speed of light" Bernard's belief is that the knowledge of lights speed doesn't say anything about being human as we can't touch or experience the speed of light.

Bernard says to valentine " zap me with penicillin and pesticides and I'll spare you the bomb and aerosols." This satirical statement is in response to Valentines confident one that scientific progress is more important than personalities. Bernard forms a humanitarian argument that knowledge of helpful inventions like penicillin and pesticides are canceled out by their evil counterparts like bombs and aerosols. Bernard is proving his opinion that a classical world is not a harmonious one as scientific truth will kill us. He states that " progress is not perfectibility" that in terms of being human these transcendent truths were only bringing us closer to an imperfect society and farther from the essence of what it is to be human.

Valentine in contrast is a classicist. He has set himself the humble task of finding the mathematical equation that can predict a population of grouse. Valentine accepts that randomness or "noise" is as much a part of reality as order. " real data is messy....very hard to spot the tune" Valentine then goes on to say that the way the " unpredictable and the predetermined unfold together to make everything the way it is......it make me so happy" Valentine likes the mystery of the unknown. The endless possibilities that the future could take, that one equation could never predict every aspect of ones life. He says "it's the best possible time to be alive, when almost everything you thought you knew was wrong. This was due to the chaos theory. However the cause of valentines happiness also causes him to become frustrated and angry.
Valentine "I've given up on grouse"
Hannah "Why?"
Valentine " too much noise. Too much bloody noise."
Despite Valentines appreciation of the random nature of the future he becomes frustrated because he cannot see the truth within something so seemingly simple. The simplest of inconsistencies compound to become larger until the truth is no longer visible through the noise.


Classicism and Romanticism themselves hold no flaws but it is the characters who represent the ideologies who are flawed. Bernard accuses classicists as potentially trying to discover the rules by which the Divine Creater himself worked. He therefore calls classicists arrogant for attempting to do this. This is ironical as we are taught by Stoppard to view Bernard as the arrogant character. We are constantly reminded that the basis of Bernard's knowledge is all a lie. Stoppard also breaks up Bernard's almost intelligent conversations with a shallow minded comment in between. " we were quite happy with Aristotle's Cosmos"  Bernard likes the idea of the earth being the centre of the universe and this is indicative of his arrogance. He also says "how did you con us out of all that status? All that money?" Bernard's ulterior motive is to gain fame and fortune, not consistent with the true Romanticist quest for self discovery. His only focus is on self knowledge which is internal and never external and this can lead to arrogance.

Stoppard represents Valentine as a more likeable character. He is on no quest to find the equation for the future.  He has a humble aim of predicting the grouse population. However valentine struggles to comprehend that Thomasina as a young child could come up with the same maths as him more than 100 earlier. Valentine can almost see the empirical truth but his arrogance clouds his vision making it impossible for valentine to keep it in his grasp.Valentine instability is seen at the conclusion of the play when he turns to alcohol as a source of absolution.


Stoppard is trying to show his audience that the abyss between Romanticism and Classicism can be crossed. Although one might think of themselves as only possessing one of these ideologies a person possesses both of them. It is like one circle of a Venn Diagram. A person may posses predominantly one form of thinking but instead of an abyss between them there is a space that allows the harmonious intermingling of ideologies. Stoppard is trying to show that life that cannot be lived within the confines of just one ideology. It is necessary that a person has both within them as to move forward in both thought and emotion. Even if the discovery of the art or science in themselves is purely accidental, every human uses both Classicism and Romanicism to reach an understanding of both themselves and the world they live in.
 

Nerd182:
I just took a brief read - I'm going to lay out some issues for you.

 - There's not much analysis. You do a lot of 'telling' and giving background information. This is unnecessary.
 - There is a lack of flow. It is fine to move to different ideas, but I get the sensation that I'm reading a lot of paragraphs, written separately, being copied and pasted into a jumbled order.
 - Your analysis isn't the analysis Lit is looking for. You need to talk about how the quote (or whatever evidence you use) achieves a particular purpose. E.g. 'the lilting cadence of 'xxx' in line 5 creates a movement to the line, propelling its pace' or 'the use of conjectural imagery reflects 'author's' inability to maintain a firmly grounded framework'
 - There are random sentences that don't belong. 'it is like one circle of a venn diagram' <- that is not appropriate.

I'm running out of time so that's all I'll leave for now. I might come back later.
Read a couple of the earlier submissions to help you build your work. EZ's work is great.

That Other Guy:
In Cold Blood - Truman Capote
Unfortunately, I cannot provide the passages. I would really appreciate some feedback!

Across passage 1, Capote employs the town of Holcomb as a microcosm of American life and visualises the destruction of social structures in the wake of the Clutter murders. Envisioning the “shallow horror” of the “frightened gossips, mostly male”, Capote seeks to convey the subversion of social norms. By having males engage in an activity commonly associated with women, Capote intends to indicate the magnitude of the Clutter murders; that which dissolves the standards upholding Holcomb and unveils the true nature of its citizens. Furthermore, the connotations of “cold” used to supplement the “shallow” response enforces the community’s detachment to the nature of the murders of themselves. Rather, Holcomb’s inhabitants are moved by the ideological implications of the crime – its destruction of individual utopia and the seeming imperviousness of the American Dream. With Postmistress Clare’s assertion that “everyone was… talking all kinds of wild-eyed stuff”, it is evident that the inhabitants of Holcomb have been torn from their mental moorings; they are, as implicit throughout passage 1, striving to mask the situation’s true horror through ambiguous language such as “pulling a stunt” and “maybe”. The use of “kind of wondering!” professes an evident aversion to confronting reality directly. Capote enforces here that the inhabitants of Holcomb have been thrust into an environment of perceived duplicity and distrust. In the grander context of the novel, this suspicion becomes an overarching motif that comes to characterise the collective society of America, thus resulting in Perry and Dick’s deaths.

However, via Mrs Hartman’s “candour” in passage 1, Capote permits the reader to the seemingly unspoken sentiments of Holcomb’s inhabitants. The slang utilised by Hartman in “sure took the fly out of me”, suggests that she was once aloof with her comfortable naivety, and further positions her as a bastion of rural values. The realisation herein, culminating in Clare’s rhetorical question “then who’s safe, I ask you?” signifies an enlightenment that redefines the social constructs of Holcomb. As referenced earlier in the novel, Holcomb’s people once relished in the liberty of unlocked doors and sleeping in the dark. On one level, Clare’s inquisition appears to elucidate that the sensationalism of the act has altered significantly a society established upon the pursuit of the American Dream. However, on another, it impugns the invincibility of this ideology, thereby signifying the deterioration of the façade upheld by the utopian Clutters. The italicised and thus emphasised utterance of “couldn’t” in passage 3 evokes a similar incredulousness in Dewey, who assumes that Mr. Clutter, the epitome of the American Dream, “would have fought [back]” in defence of “Bonnie’s life” and the “lives of his children”. Herein lies Capote’s criticism of the pleasing veneer of the American Dream – one that fails to fulfil the beliefs of Holcomb’s inhabitants. With Dewey’s projection having not aligned with Herb’s actions during the murders, Capote delineates humanity and its assumption of the American Dream as one that champions a constant infallibility within its practitioners.

On the contrary, Capote recognises that society’s deference to social norms are ultimately injurious to their evaluation of the mentally ill. As Marie peruses the “mug-shots” in passage 2, Capote applies a grotesque juxtaposition between Perry’s “moist, dreamy” eyes and the barbaric nature of the crime. Herein, Perry’s perspective on the world is realised; that which is viewed through clouded lens of quixotic dreams. As Capote proceeds to contrast Perry’s character with Dick’s, to which Marie associates with a “bobcat… eyes radiant with pain and hatred”, and whose eyes are “forbiddingly ‘criminal’” the reader apprehends the bestial nature of this man. However, bearing the descriptions of both men in mind, Capote strives to engender sympathy for Perry, whose heightened self-awareness and “ironic, erratic compassion” in passage 3 signifies a true – albeit stunted – connection to his own humanity. Hence, Capote observes the limitless complexity of humanity, conceding that within the most depraved individuals there exist moments of charitableness.

In a similar vein, Perry’s realisation of the absurdity of the murders in passage 3 points to the irrationality of striving towards the American Dream. Fraught with pithy sentences, Perry’s admission to have been “sick” and “disgusted” with his primitive behaviour envisions the manipulation of envy. The dichotomy between “rich man” and “child’s silver” establishes, on a grander level, the hierarchy upheld by the American Dream; Perry is, as is seen here, deigning to the level of this insignificant currency, thereby inhabiting his subordinated position within society. In another sense, however, Perry is emulating Dick, who Capote described to be “serpentine”, by “crawling on his belly”. Herein, Capote envisions the grotesque transformations of Perry’s character elicited by the allure of the American Dream. This contrasts with the Capote’s physical depictions of Perry in passage 2, encapsulated in language such as “peculiar refinement”, which establishes an unalloyed visage of his character. Furthermore, the overarching futility of Perry’s actions in passage 3 marks the ever-retreating hope for attaining the ability to exercise his dreams. Thus, as it appears, Capote examines the human condition under the guile of the prospects of wealth and how this can be corrupted by the vices of society.

Building upon this, by depicting Dewey as “emaciated”, Capote envisions the development of a societal malaise. Employing Dewey's wife as an emblem of society, Capote addresses the stigmatism that arises from a “[bad] state of mind”. On one level, Marie’s anxiety regarding her husband’s health encapsulates a humanly instinctive nature to express concern towards a loved one; however, on another, it unveils her realisation that her husband’s societal position is now jeopardised. Dewey’s transformed persona of passage 3 does not exhibit such qualities, embodying a relentless curiosity and a reprisal of his persona at the outset of his investigation. Thus, Capote illustrates the fulfilment of Dewey’s purpose through his ameliorated physical and mental condition in passage 3. Conversely, Perry’s decline from the haughty persona in the mug shot of passage 2 to the dishevelled figure of passage 3, realises the prevailing nature of the American justice system: one that esteems the affluent and the illustrious and disregards the economically defeated. It is apparent that Perry’s efforts to attain societal place are futile, contrasting with Dewey and Hartman of passage 1. With the eventual executions of Perry and Dick, the reader finally apprehends the insidious nature of American society and its marginalisation of the mentally deranged. For Capote, Perry and Dick’s executions mark the culmination of American ignorance, positing that a society domineered by the American Dream is inherently unwitting, so staunchly fixated on self-preservation, that it forgets the value of humanity itself.

Apink!:
Hi!
Could someone please give me feedback on the little paragraph I did?

Adrian Hyland - Kinglake 350

The passage is an excerpt from Snapshots, Adrian Hyland's Kinglake 350. It narrates the family of Drew Barr and Angie OÇonnor escaping from the fire front that has passed their home.

"Only home the kids have ever known" allude to the loss of identity and sense of belonging the children suffered as they watched their home burn down to the ground, and "Grace burns her hand..."depict the endurance the children withstood while confronting emotional trauma and physical injuries. The pains afflicted to those who are weaker members of society such as children and animal are prominent in this passage. "Cows up against fences" are strong imagery which create a desperate scene where livestock have struggled to escape the confinements of their little home in order to flee away from the fire front. "Gaping mouths"and "beseeching eyes"are highly emotional language that create a picture of unimaginable pain that animals have had to endure - members of the society who were simply ignored for being less valuable than human lives. What Hyland laments is the lack of attention towards the weaker members of the society- before, during and after the Black Saturday, and their subsequent suffering because of the adults who were meant to act responsibly. Beyond this, Hyland criticises our innate instinct to ignore possibilities of ill-fortune and hope for the best circumstances, for the sake of others that depend on us.

Thanks! It's really crappy :P Please criticise, I feel like I need it :P

Thank you guys (:

coconut stripes:
I only did one Para, but if anyone could mark it, it would be much appreciated.

Jane’s statement, ‘I desired liberty; for liberty I gasped; for liberty I uttered a prayer,’ within excerpt two reveals her ‘desperate’ yearning for liberation and freedom- an escape from the restrictions of Lowood. As she describes the ‘boundary’ of Lowood which renders her an ‘exile’ within its ‘prison-ground’; Bronte reveals the restriction that Lowood placed upon Jane, isolating her from the ‘real world’ and rendering her a prisoner within its confines. Within passage two, Jane ‘trace the white road winding round the… mountain’ which she ‘longed to follow’; Bronte expresses Jane’s strong desire for freedom. The road is seen ‘vanishing’ in a gorge; Jane cannot know where such a road may take her, yet still yearns after ‘change, [a] stimulus’. Bronte reveals that Jane is not afraid of the unknown, of ‘life amidst [the world’s] perils’, a notion which directly contradicts how women were expected to behave within 19th century patriarchal society, in living a life sheltered and dependent upon their husbands.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page