Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.

[kadesal]

is this thread active anymore??? one way to find out
(this is the script for my oral SAC, its meant to be under 5 minutes  )
INTRODUCTION:
In Gwen Harwood’s poems, ‘Prize Giving’ and ‘In the Park’, a feminist lens highlights the varying degree to which women can convey power through their respective roles, a school-girl ironically – appears to be much more emotionally empowered than the mother of the latter poem.
BODY PARAGRAPH 1:
[In Prize-Giving] Harwood’s focus on the male intellectual is utilized to explore the spectrum of intelligence in a matriarchal setting. On account of Harwood’s upbringing by several dominant female figures in her life - her mother being an active feminist in the community whilst her grandmother earned her own living until she reached eighty – has shaped her writing to be an exploration of the influence of female figures in society. In terms of structure, the ABCBCA rhyme scheme allows every line to work in synergy with one another to produce a perfect rhyme. Harwood refuses to stray from this systematic form to emulate Eisenbart’s projected image of composed immaculacy. In addition, Eisenbart is strictly referred to with the honorific ‘Professor’ and the omission of his first name, typically reserved for official addresses – establishes his demand for respect. In addition, the dactylic meter which is occasionally disrupted is indicative of the focalised perspective of Eisenbart’s social image teetering on the edge of dismantlement, which is disguised by the seemingly-perfect rhyme. The introduction of a second person disrupts the dactylic meter, in which the whole line, ‘one girl sat grinning at him, her hand bent’ is narrated in iambic pentameter. Though it immediately resumes its dactylic form, it is still subject to fluctuations. The significance of the schoolgirl’s mockery of his Rodin’s Thinker-like pose demonstrates her awareness of Eisenbart’s attempt to pose as an intellectual. Her confidence in mocking the figure of intended respect is further established not only by these disruptions – but by the visual imagery Harwood employs to instil the divergence of the female persona in the audience. Unlike the student body which is generalised as a 'mosaic of... blonde, black, mouse-brown [heads]', their appearance described as a collective with the use of alliteration of the 'b' sound, the 'titian-haired' persona does not fit within these constraints ; delineating her individuality. Overall, Harwood attempts to convey the fragility of the male ego through Eisenbart's persona, in which he begins to see himself as an oxymoronic 'sage fool' in his reflection upon witnessing the similarly ironic schoolgirl's 'master's air'. Both Eisenbart and the schoolgirl are therefore relegated to oxymorons themselves – in which their appearance is not at all reflective of their intelligence.

BODY PARAGRAPH 2:
In ‘In the Park’, she similarly utilizes the focus on an individual to contradict the societal expectation of the maternal role. Motherhood in this context, as opposed to artistic depictions of it throughout history, namely Madonna and Child, is instead portrayed in a negative light by the persona being consumed by it. In terms of structure, a sonnet typically carries connotations of the romantic and sublime - which is starkly contrasted against the tedium of the mother’s life, as well as with the varying anapaestic meter, which when narrated is monotonous, devoid of any melody – whilst retaining a more fluid and casual tone through the variation. In the first quatrain, this is interrupted by a caesura (-) succeeded by the spondaic enjambed line ‘too late’ to emulate the halting thought process of the mother. The sudden interruption could be interpreted as a moment of regret, followed by a solemn lament for the potential future with this past object of love. Alternatively, the focalisation of a third person perspective represents a god’s eye to accurately and objectively describe the mother’s menial life, whilst being able to include phrases that otherwise would not have been incorporated into the poem by a first or second person perspective without bias. For example, the line,  ‘to the wind she says, ‘They have eaten me alive’’, would not have been heard by any other party. Here, the auditory image of her speaking into the wind implies a sense of regret for what she’s said, willing its meaning to be carried into the wind and to ultimately disappear. Her infinitesimal existence is once again re-iterated as her words are evanescent; immediately disappearing – conveyed to no-one except for an inanimate entity. In essence, the idea Harwood attempts to convey through this poem can be condensed easily into the separated rhyming couplet, the first line ending with ‘watch them thrive’, the latter ending with ‘they have eaten me alive’. The oxymoron between the concepts of a healthy child developing in contrast to the mother being eaten alive psychologically highlights the parasitic relationship between a mother and child. The audience is able to understand through the use of an oxymoron specifically; that there is a duality to motherhood, a conflict between living for oneself and for one’s children.
CONCLUSION:
With the opposing personas presented in the poems, Harwood attempts to reinforce the imperative role of women in contemporary society whilst simultaneously condemning those viewing motherhood as an impediment to their individuality.

[hums_student]

Someone please tell me everything that's wrong with my essay. Feel free to be as mean and critical and harsh as you like!  I won't hate you

This is a practice prompt on CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF my adaptations and transformations SAC happening first week back in term 2!

Richard Brooks’s film adaptation of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof renders Big Daddy the focus of not merely the second act but rather of the entire text. Discuss with reference to both the play and the film.

Between the construction of Tennessee Williams’s play Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and its transformation into the 1958 film, it is evident that meaning has been altered due to the time period and the audience’s views and values at the time as well as the different methods of presenting the text in the form of a play script and as a film.

In the script Big Daddy makes no appearance in act one with the exception of being mentioned by others, hence ensuring that the audience’s focus does not stray away from Brick’s relationship with other characters such as Maggie and Skipper. By contrast, in Richard Brooks’s film adaptation Big Daddy is introduced much earlier. Without the restrictions of the stage, the film is able to show Big Daddy’s arrival in his private plane and Maggie taking him back to his plantation. Unlike the original play, where Big Daddy is first seen at the beginning of act two, the film gives the audience a much earlier introduction of Big Daddy in order to focus on his character much more often throughout the text. The film particularly brings forward a different portrayal of Big Daddy’s character as loving and understanding through the shot of him willingly going over to Maggie to give her a hug. By asking Maggie ‘Does [Brick] love you?’ Brooks paints a more human and empathetic nature of Big Daddy who can somewhat understand the feelings of others, as opposed to the vulgar, tactless and self-centred character depicted by Williams.

Brick’s relationship with Big Daddy and the representation of Big Daddy himself changes drastically with the adaptation of the script into a film. Brick and Big Daddy’s complex and troubled relationship is conveyed within the play mainly through the use of dialogue, and while there are some instances of stage direction implying physical interactions between Brick and Big Daddy, such as when he ‘clasps his son’s two shoulders’ in act two after realising Brick was an alcoholic, all actions are dependent on dialogue. On the other hand, physical interactions between Brick and Big Daddy are much more easily demonstrated in the film due to a lack of restrictions posed by a play script. Scenes of Brick and Big Daddy’s interactions outside in the rain and later in the basement easily shifts Big Daddy into the limelight. The ability to create a visualisation of Brick and Big Daddy’s father-son relationship is largely advantageous for a film audience as they are able to see it in action instead of purely attempting to visualise it through the script.

One of the more notable scenes of the film is the scene shot in the Pollitt family basement featuring only Brick and Big Daddy. In this scene the audience witnesses a heartfelt and sincere conversation between the father and son, which establishes Big Daddy’s character as not merely a brash plantation owner but also deep down a humble and caring father. This is further emphasised through Brooks’s neglect to use the repeated phrase of ‘Wouldn’t it be funny if that was true’ for both Brick and Big Daddy. In the play this is used to highlight both men’s rejection of their spouse’s declaration of love for them, yet by neglecting this line for the film this proposes the idea that the men may not be as quick to reject their wives as they were depicted in the play. Big Daddy’s appearances throughout the later half of the film also differs greatly from the original play, where Big Daddy makes no appearance in act three, and any reconciliation between Brick and Big Daddy is completely absent. By adding this scene Richard Brooks is able to add more depth to Big Daddy’s character by implying that the audience was only introduced to a shallow portrayal of Big Daddy in the play and that there is much more to his personality.

Therefore, it can be seen that the changes made through the transformation of the play Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and its 1958 film adaption significantly alter the role of Big Daddy within the narrative by rendering him the focus of the entire text.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

It's probably a bit short (just under 700 words). Anyway please tell me where I need to improve on!

[Primenumber32]

Hi, this is an article analysis and I would greatly appreciate some feedback on how to improve and what to keep doing.

This is the link to the article, https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sadly-us-will-not-learn-from-latest-carnage-20171003-gytirg.html

This is my analysis:

Analysis: Sadly, the US will not learn from latest carnage.
The October Las Vegas shooting again reignited prolific Australian media coverage regarding the issue of gun control in America. Unlike the USA, with its vastly opposing views, Australian media has universally condemned America for not taking significant action against gun violence, with many lamenting the fact that such massacres will continue. “The Age”, in its editorial ‘Sadly, US will not learn from latest carnage’ (4/10/17), asserts that more guns will not make America safer. Using an exasperated tone, the editor echoes most of the readers acceptance that America needs to implement tougher gun laws for the safety of its citizens. More significantly, the editor’s concern is that America will not change its law; mirroring the belief of most Australian readers. 
From the outset, through the headline, the editor makes his contention clear, not only showing the newspapers’ conviction, but also allowing himself to align with his readers’ frustration at America’s inability to enforce more stringent gun laws. To elicit feelings of anger, the headline begins with the despairing word “sadly” and ends with the highly charged word “carnage” which connotes savageness. Following traditional editorial style, the editor presents a reasoned discussion that increases in assertiveness, in this case moving from the horror of the shootings, to Australia’s solution which is also used to rebut the belief that evil “cannot” be “regulate[d]”. Accordingly, the editor aims to create an impression that he has carefully considered the arguments for and against tougher gun laws, thus leading his readers to accept his view as balanced and thoughtful: that America should change its gun laws but it “will not”. Moreover, the editorial ends with a clear contention presented in short sentences to convey assertiveness. 
The editor’s opening paragraph highlights the difference between America and Australia to advocate that guns are the issue. The repetition of the phrase “once again” is designed to mirror the readers’ frustration that unlike Australia, America has not learnt from their previous mass shootings. To support such a position, the editor Initially coerces readers to see a strong and respectful connection between Australia, and America by inclusively asserting that “we” are “bound” by ties of culture, history, language, family, friendship”, however, he then quickly counters this with a dichotomy with respect to America’s “utterly alien” “love affair” with guns, thus, aiming to convince the audience to align not only the writer but their country- Australia’s stance on the importance of establishing safer gun regulations. 
Within the pieces body, the editor systematically explores the horror of the shootings and correlates it to lack of stringent gun laws. Using the power of three, he positions readers to view an absurd legal situation where one can attain “high powered” weapons “without raising the slightest alarm” and further, bring the weapons into a hotel “unremarked”. Furthermore, the editor depicts the horrific destruction that guns can cause by incorporating the relatable experience of the “time” to make tea which is designed to shock Australian readers and thus provoke them to believe that tougher gun laws may have prevented the mass shooting. Moreover, the incorporation of the word “maim” which connotes actions of mutilation and deformity along with the word “slaughter” which is related to the killing of animals is intended to compel the visualisation of the horrors that current gun laws allow. This is reinforced with the statistics that since the “Sandy hook Elementary school killing” there has been “more than 1500” similar acts, convincing readers to see his arguments as being supported by facts, thus framing his editorial as being indisputable.  Overall, the author aims to give readers better perspective of the horrors that guns are inflicting to emphasise the importance of changing gun laws.
Another approach by the editor is to show that there are possible solutions to the gun problem, but America is not listening. By declaring that Australia has not experienced a “mass shooting” since implementing tougher gun laws, the editor intends to encourage readers to see a clear cause and effect relationship; less guns leads to less gun violence.  His assertation (contrary to common American belief) that Australia has “not brought security at the price of liberty” implies that the concept of freedom is subjective and shows that, unlike Americans, who believe a gun to be a “precious…symbol of freedom”; Australian’s view “lives” as being “precious” and free to live without being “casually ended by lone madmen”. Highlighting that Americans must look beyond a flawed “ideology” and instead use “evidence” to ground their perspective and consequently conclude that currently guns are but a “cancer on their society”.
After providing a rebuttal to the argument, that to take guns away is take away one’s freedom- the editor ends his piece by presenting two other rebuttals, again- to demonstrate the fallibility of points that support the push for more guns.  By contending that “if every concert goer” of the Las Vegas shooting had been armed it “would not have saved them” and emphasising this with the use of a standalone quote, the editor aims to appeal to readers logic and thus convince them that arming concert goers would have made no difference as the man was “32 floors above”. Next, with a mocking tone, the editor uses the governor, Matt Bevin’s tweet that “you can’t regulate evil” against him, implying that such stance has not worked before in America and thus should not continue to be used as an argument. Instead Suggesting that if these acts are truly “random” and “unpreventable” then the most one can do is “disarm this evil” and ironically regulate it.   

[jayreichelt]

Hi everyone! This is my passage analysis on Cut, Words and Arrival of the Bee Box by Sylvia Plath. I would really appreciate some feedback on it in...

Passage Analysis: Arrival of the Bee Box, Cut, Words
Use two or more of the set poems as the basis for a discussion of the poetry of Sylvia Plath
Sylvia Plath utilises her poems as a catalyst for examination of power. This authority, and influence exists in many forms in Plath’s life, from internal conflict to marital matters.

The first hint of power and conflict is introduced via “Cut”. The use of opposing forces, such as “pilgrims” and “Indians” or “Babushka” and “Redcoats”, depicts the wound as a war between two sides similar to a marital dispute. These characterisations allude to the concept of rivalry and power as they are so drastically different in description and meaning, they naturally exist as opposition. It is thought that Plath is inundated with feelings and loss of power during this time due to her divorce with Ted Hughes.

The allusion to Plath’s divorce can be discovered throughout “Cut” when observing the language, detail and tone closely. There appears to be no discomfort in the injury, she depicts the scene almost as jolly and elegant with her use of “plush” and “thrill”, this gives the cut a sense of homeliness as one would find within a marriage (even when a battle is present). Plath’s use of an “onion” when describing the circumstances alludes to the idea of homeliness and family life in many aspects. It could hint at the role of women during the 1950s; cooking and cleaning, that Plath had to fill.

In the 1950s, society dictated how an individual should behaviour and interact with those around them. The words and pressures surrounding Plath held an unexplainable authority and power over her. If she did not give in to her role as a wife and woman in society, the consequences would be dire. These themes are channelled through Plath’s work, particularly in “Words” as she discusses the power that insults, ideas and opinions can have one’s life. This is evident as she uses metaphors, such as “horse”, “axes”, and “wood rings”, to stand in place of insults and the soul, and emphasise the power of such concepts. The “axes” are the initial impact and how it is over in moments, whereas the “horses” depict the ongoing jurisdiction of words even after the moment has passed. The “wood rings” can be interpreted as the layers of the soul and how axes can destroy and alter the layers of wood built over time. In this poem, it feels as though power has been forever lost from the character and taken by the inflictor.

 “Words” also approaches the idea that power can be taken away permanently. It is addressed toward the ending of the poem as she “encounters” the “dry and riderless” words on the “road”.  The imagery suggests that power does not need a face to be powerful. This concept is enforced by the use of repetition, for instance “echoes! Echoes”.

However, “Arrival of the Bee Box” has a different perspective and tone surrounding sovereignty and power. The modality of the character changes over the course of the poem, in the beginning low modality is expressed as they are unsure of what action to take and how to handle the situation as seen in phrases such as “how can I let them out?”. When the poem progresses and the modality increases, Plath expresses comfortability with the Bee Box. This conveys that the character is empowered and accepting of authority, they are not afraid of managing. This could be reflective of the recovery process of mental illness or inner thoughts, the bees, and her mind would be represented as the physical box. The character begins to understand and embrace the bees. This is representative of embracing trauma, inner thoughts, and the empower one may feel from doing so.

The theme of power is unmistakeable throughout all of Plath’s poems regardless of the matter at hand. From marital issues to internal conflict, the power and empowerment is always present in the foreground or background. For this, Sylvia Plath is a passionate, blunt, compelling writer clearly ahead of her time.

[DUK0002]

Masculinity is defined by how much power a man could wield, but this concept heavily relies on how society may view that individual. In the hegemonic masculine world of 1835 Russia which highly stigmatised competiveness and assertiveness, ambition and higher rank became synonymous to masculinity. In his short story, The Nose, Gogol portrays masculinity through the use of literary techniques such as the use of verbs and adverbs to describe his characters whereas Alexeieff and Parker’s ‘Le Nez’, manipulates camera techniques, sounds and lighting in their adaptation of the same story.
 
Gogol’s main protagonist’s main objectives in life are to climb the table of ranks and marry well, but in order for Kovalyov to rise in power, he first builds himself a public identity which makes it seem like he has more power than he actually does. He arbitrarily attaches the title ‘major’ to his name which literally means important or significant because it projects a more masculine impression than simply referring to himself using the more modest title ‘collegiate assessor’. ‘Major’ carries the connotation of the physical prowess of a military man, which not only fits the masculine archetype of a ‘warrior’ but also relate to the fact that in 1835 Russia when the people of civil rank could attain the same status as the navy, the armed services still took precedence, meaning ‘major’ has a higher prestige.
 
Gogol uses women as a symbol system to represent ‘Kovalyov’s’ masculinity because women can be a basis of masculinity. Prior to the loss of his nose, ‘Kovalyov had no problem approaching ‘women’ or ‘pretty girls’ and telling them ‘secret instructions’ and when his nose returned, Kovalyov made a point to ‘ostentatiously stuff both nostrils’ with snuff whilst chatting with Mrs Podtochin and her daughter. Gogol uses the adverb ‘ostentatiously’ which suggest that Kovalyov was trying to impress them with his nose in a pretentious display only to reject the females. Being able to reject them means that he still has a wide variety of choice, he is still desired by women of higher rank and to be masculine is to be attractive or desired by women, and not just any women but good-looking, high-profiled women such as ‘Mrs Podtochin’s ‘daughter. However, when he lost his nose, he ‘jumpt’ away from the slim girl at the Cathedral as if he had been ‘burnt’. Here the readers could infer that Gogol is suggesting that the nose is a phallic symbol. The loss of Kovalyov’s nose could be seen as a metaphor for a castration, which could be ruinous for Kovalyov because without his nose, he could no longer desired by the opposite gender, he is reduced to a lower class and the image he has embellished with his ‘major’ title is eradicated.
 
Whilst Gogol uses adverbs to illustrate the power that women have on determining Kovalyov’s masculinity, Alexeieff and Parker’s adaptation uses lighting and movement to convey the same concept. This scene where Kovalyov and a woman are on a rocking boat has relatively low-key lighting and the woman is the only figure in the frame which has an all-white tone causing her to become the centre of attention.The shadow ratio increases with each rock of the boat, causing each frame to become darker and darker which insinuates the passing of time. The only person which sways up and down is Kovalyov, whereas the woman does not move at all. This could elucidate the impression that Alexeieff and Parker are suggesting that women may have an effect in the destabilisation of Kovalyov’s position in society.
 
 
In addition to the movement of the boat, Alexeieff and Parker also uses some camera movement and set manipulation to further allude to Kovalyov’s destabilisation through the loss of his nose through the scene after the rocking boat. The animation dollies in to a close up of Kovalyov face to accentuate Kovalyov’s realisation of his missing nose. He unconsciously clutches it as the walls of his apartment opens up and pans to reveal a street full of women gawking, showing that the first thing that Kovalyov thought of when he found out he lost his nose was the women. To be desired by women is to be considered by society to be masculine, so this worry shows the power that the women’s validation has in affecting Kovalyov’s pride, and therefore society’s perception of his masculinity.
 
If Kovalyov were desired by women, other men would then envy Kovalyov, perpetuating the competiveness of masculinity. Gogol presents Kovalyov’s personified nose as being a ‘state councillor’, four ranks above Kovalyov. Even in an absurd scenario, where he witnesses his own nose having human characteristics such as a ‘face’ and ‘expression’, feelings of inferiority and jealousy still manage to creep into Kovalyov's mind. As aforementioned, the nose could be a phallic symbol, and in this sense, Gogol may be suggesting that in a hyper masculine world, the ‘nose’ is valued so much that it is given a higher rank in society. Kovalyov loss of his own nose is emasculating to the point that he cannot even display the usual masculine traits of assertiveness as he didn’t know how to ‘go about’ approaching it.  Moreover, when he did find his nose, Gogol uses the adverb ‘superciliously’ to describe how Kovalyov treated lower ranking soldiers as this specific adverb connotes that Kovalyov thinks he’s superior to others Kovalyov literally turns his nose up at them to display dominance, emphasising that the soldiers have noses which were ‘no bigger than a waistcoat button. The italics of the word ‘waistcoat’ highlights its connotations of being small and as mentioned before, smaller means less masculine.
 
 
This idea of other men looking down at Kovalyov when he has lost his nose is also explored by Alexeieff and Parker through non-diegetic Korean and Vietnamese music to substitute for the narration of Gogol’s ‘The Nose’. The improvisatory nature of the music usually has a slow tempo with long uneven phases but after Kovalyov has confronted his nose at the Cathedral and it promptly left, the tempo quickened and builds to a crescendo which can seem aggressive. The Noseless Kovalyov desperately tries to reach for other men at the Cathedral but the man he approaches disappears and other men quickly filled the space he vacated, coupled with the the dissonant harmonies of the soundscape, this action seems accusatory.  These men are seen with a full shot and placed closer to the audience whilst Kovalyov is only presented with a long shot. This type of character positioning subtly coveys to the audience that the figures which are bigger, the men with protruding noses, have more power, whereas Kovalyov lacked this power. This scene seems to suggest to the audience that when his nose left, Kovalyov no longer belonged in on the same level as these men who have longer noses.
 
 
Gogol portrayed masculinity through the use of narrative devices such as gender specific words and adverbs to directly represent masculinity for his readers whereas Alexeieff and Parker’s representation of masculinity was more deeply coated. Only through the subtle changes in the soundscape, lighting and camera movement can the concept of masculinity in the gender polarised society of Kovalyov’s world, be noticed by the audience.
 

[rgkn]

Any help on this would be appreciated, I'm in Lit 1/2 and this would easily be my weakest subject, so this analysis will probably be well below the standard on this board. Anyway here's a piece of my latest essay which scored pretty poorly. All help is appreciated!
On Washington Square by Henry James:

In the final paragraph of passage 1 the reader is offered a glimpse of the author's underlying views regarding the romance and sentimentalism in the context of the novel. Mrs. Penniman's brother confidently predicts " Lavinia will try to persuade her [Catherine] that some young man... is in lover with her. It will be quite untrue." This detached and cynical perspective, in the particular context it is presented in teh text, appears to mirror the author's perspective. Of course it is not necessarily true that because a character states an opinion  that opinion is shared by the author, however the brother's statements in this particular instance are deliberately cast in an authoritative light. James describes the brother as 'very shrewd' and states the he 'understood' at the very least Mrs Penniman's 'turn of mind' if not Catherine's. These statements, which precede the brother's opinions, hand the following sentences a sense of truth and authority, giving the reader a sense of having been given insight into the author;s cynical point of view.

This insight that the reader is allowed is a brief break from the 'poker-face' of authorial detachment present in the rest of the novel. OUtside of the previously aforementioned lapse, the author's opinions are carefully removed from the specific descriptions of event and dialogues. Even when describing Dr Sloper's blatant misogyny - "his wife had een a reasonable women, but she had been a bright exception" - James offers no immediate comment on the validity or invalidity of these undoubtedly abhorrent opinions, at least not explicitly. Many modern authors would seek to immediately distance themselves from the sexist character by refuting the character's opinions through contrived examples or biased language. James' objective, recount style leaves Dr Sloper's opinions unchallenged in the short term. Dr Sloper's opinons are stated factually and only because they are relevant. The style with which they are communicated to the reader mirrors how a reader might imagine Dr Sloper would write in his notebook - cold and utilitarian. In doing so James attempts to create a straightforward, honest, almost scientific snapshot of the setting after which he named the novel.

[hums_student]

- snip -

Hey @rgkn! I'm just another current lit student as well but anyway below are some of the changes I would make:

In the final paragraph of passage 1 (one) the reader is offered a glimpse of the author's underlying views regarding the romance and sentimentalism in the context of the novel. Mrs. Penniman's brother confidently predicts " Lavinia will try to persuade her [Catherine] that some young man... is in lover with her. It will be quite untrue." This detached and cynical perspective, in the particular context it is presented in teh text, appears to mirror the author's perspective (Through Mrs. Penniman's brother's confident prediction that "...", the author offers an insight into his own detached and cynical views.). Of course it is not necessarily true that because a character states an opinion  that opinion is shared by the author, however the brother's statements in this particular instance are deliberately cast in an authoritative light (This sentence feels a little wordy and awkward. Maybe just write "This possibly suggests that..."). James describes the brother as 'very shrewd' and states the he 'understood' at the very least Mrs Penniman's 'turn of mind' if not Catherine's. These statements, which precede the brother's opinions, hand the following sentences a sense of truth and authority, giving the reader a sense of having been given insight an insight into the author's cynical point of view.

This insight that the reader is allowed is a brief break from the 'poker-face' of authorial detachment present in the rest of the novel. Outside of the previously aforementioned lapse, the author's opinions are carefully removed from the specific descriptions of event and dialogues. Even when describing Dr Sloper's blatant misogyny - "his wife had been a reasonable women, but she had been a bright exception" - James offers no immediate comment on the validity or invalidity of these undoubtedly abhorrent opinions, at least not explicitly. This significantly differs from the style of many modern authors who would seek to immediately distance themselves from the sexist character by refuting the character's opinions through contrived examples or biased language. James' objective, recount style leaves Dr Sloper's opinions unchallenged in the short term. Dr Sloper's opinons are stated factually and only because they are relevant. The style with which they are communicated to the reader mirrors how a reader might imagine Dr Sloper would write in his notebook - cold and utilitarian. In doing so James attempts to successfully / effectively creates a straightforward, honest, almost scientific snapshot of the setting after which he named the novel.

EDIT - Please take my corrections with a grain of salt as I'm still in VCE as well haha! (Also I haven't read this book lol!) But anyway I thought overall it was really good, even though you said it scored poorly. Maybe approach your teacher about it?

[DarwinsFinches]

Hey,

Here is my lit perspectives on Cat on a Hot Tin Roof if anyone is willing to look over it?

Thanks in advance. 

DIscuss the proposition that characters in Williams’ “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” are alone because they fail to deal with the “inadmissible things” of life.

A play that slowly constructs an image of the decaying American Dream, “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” explores the sordid reality of societal hierarchies during the cold war-era of the 1950’s. Overtly presenting the plantation as run by African-American slaves, Williams suggests that the affluent Pollitt family have prospered from the suppression of the lower class. Seemingly imploring the audience to observe the ultimate outcome of a failure to deal with the “inadmissible things” stemming from the source of the Pollitts wealth, Williams’ play reflects Marx’s belief of the existence of a continual conflict of class within society.

The source of Brick’s “disgust”, the Pollitt family’s malignant and intrinsic view on personal wealth, results in the catalysis of his reduction from a college “football star” to a “hobbling man”. In unison with Williams’ evocation in which he labels the majority of the play’s action as “not limited to the homosexual struggle of one man” but the “flickering interplay of live human beings”, the audience begins to understand that Brick’s alcoholism and subsequent liminality is caused by his materialistic family and not “the one clean and true thing” that was his relationship with Skipper. Indeed, Brick’s disillusionment with the ideals possessed by his financially motivated relatives results in his position of helplessness whereupon he relies on an artificial “click” to grant him the piece he longs to experience. The hyper-materialistic and “deceitful” Pollitt family act as the product of the ironically coveted American Dream, and as a result, the family’s actions and behaviour results in a questioning of Western societal ideals, supporting the existence hierarchical class conflict. Through his depiction of Brick as a “broken man”, Williams constructs an image of Brick that is extremely pertinent due to his cyclical dependency on money to fuel his alcoholism. Thus ultimately presenting an irony where Brick’s solace of “Echo Spring” can only be achieved through his family’s exploitation of the lower class and continual funding of his “devotion to the occupation of drinking”. Brick’s isolation from his family acts as the physical manifestation of his alcoholism; an indictment of the upper class spoils which are gained through the exploitation of the lower class and reflect a failure to deal with the “inadmissible” truth regarding the source of his wealth.

The mercenary capitalist structure which underpins 1950’s southern America imposes stringent and contrived ideals that culminate in the bitter and lonely unison between Brick and Maggie. Exacerbating the loneliness of Maggie through her tragic evocation, “living with somebody you love can be lonelier than living entirely alone”, Williams highlights the isolatory effects of Brick’s “detachment” from his capitalist family. “Disgust[ed]” by his family’s exploitative nature Brick withdraws from “the flickering interplay” that is the ongoing conflict of his family, rejecting Maggie’s sexual advances. As a result of Brick’s “detachment”, Maggie attempts to protect the integrity of her marriage in order to prevent herself from “dying poor”. A reflection of the consumer dominated society that surrounds them, Maggie’s performance revolves around her projection of opulence and desirability to assert dominance over her relatives and the lower class slaves of the Pollitt family. Adopting “mascara”, “bracelets” and an “ivory slip of lace”, she manipulates her surroundings to attempt to secure her financial prosperity. Serving as a reflection upon the social climate of 1950’s society, Williams suggests that a projection of one’s prosepity and financial success was deemed acceptable and somewhat admirable during this cold war era. Indeed, presenting Maggie as a lonely and over-indulgent wife, and Brick as a crippled alcoholic husband, Williams presents a striking contrast to the “beaming smile” of Lacey and Sookey. Portraying the upper class as dejected and deplorable, and the lower class as optimistic and generous, Williams’ play presents a scathing reflection of the exploitative nature of the upper class, reinforcing Marx’s notion of a continual and cyclical conflict of class ideals and image.

Even Williams, to an extent, disregards the importance of slavery on the plantation and in supporting the wider capitalist structure of Cold War America. His usual elaborate and extensive stage directions become less descriptive and astute in their requirements of Lacey and Sookey most notably through “One of the Negroes enter, either Lacey or Sookey”. Suggesting that the relevance and importance of either character as secondary to the conflict of the play, Williams, can be seen to perpetuate the dismissive view of the lower class possessed by upper class America. In unison with Big Daddy’s constant proclamation “that [he] built the place”, a subtle juxtaposition of the deceitful and financially motivated upper class Pollitt’s against the helpful and compliant African-American workers begins to arise. Whether it is Big Mama’s “fat fist clenching [her] mouth” or Mae’s face that contorts “horribly”, Williams presents the Pollitt family as miserable and unadmirable despite their considerable wealth. It is through this representation that Williams tragically highlights the isolation of the Pollitt’s and disillusionment that they experience. The pertinent image of a “shrill” Maggie questioning herself asking “who are you?” presents an image of a grown woman, who at the admission of herself, and despite her opulent jewellery and “slip of ivory lace”, remains unaware of her true identity and purpose in life. Lamenting that such materialistic ambitions culminate in the decay of one’s mental health, but the prosperity of one’s material wealth, Williams asserts that the confines of a hyper-consumerist society ultimately results in the utter isolation and implosion of those who seek the American Dream.

A social commentary on the effects of the elusive American Dream on one's own psyche, Williams emphasises that the relentless pursuit of fame, fortune and the American Dream ultimately culminates in the isolation and reduction of upper class individuals. Williams asserts that a constant failure to realise the “inadmissible” source of their financial prosperity eventuate in the Pollitt's intrinsic and bitter feud for “the biggest land on the Mississippi Delta”.

[Caledu]

Thought I would have a go at correcting because I'm bored (and because I did COAHTR as well, but in term 1, so a while ago). Take my corrections with a grain of salt as I'm still a current student.

DIscuss the proposition that characters in Williams’ “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” are alone because they fail to deal with the “inadmissible things” of life.

A play that slowly constructs an image of the decaying American Dream, The syntax of this sentence becomes a bit weird when you place this phrase at the front; it flows more nicely as a subordinate clause“Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”this is not a quote. it should be underlined, italicised or in single quotation marks, a play that slowly constructs an image of the decaying American Dream, explores the sordid reality of societal hierarchies during the cold war-era of the 1950’s. Overtly presenting the plantation as run by African-American slaves, Williams suggests that the affluent Pollitt family have prospered from the suppression of the lower class. Seemingly I don't think you need thisimploring the audience to observe the ultimate outcome of a failure to deal with the “inadmissible things” stemming from the source of the Pollitts' wealth, Williams’ play reflects Marx’sthe Marxist belief ofin the existence of a continual conflict of class within society.

The source of Brick’s “disgust”,Again, I think this would work better in the middle of the sentence. the Pollitt family’s malignant and intrinsicI don't think these are the right words. view on personal wealth, the source of Brick’s “disgust”, results in the catalysisThe word you're looking for is catalysing. It's a subtle difference but 'catalysis' refers to a chemical specifically, while 'catalysing' isn't strictly referring to a chemical of his reduction from a college “football star” to a “hobbling man”. In unison with Williams’ evocationI think you might have meant "As a result of", because the rest of the sentence doesn't make sense with this phrase. If you want to keep 'in unison with', then you have to refer to one other thing; you only referred to an 'evocation' and then went straight into the effect. Also, this is not really an 'evocation'in which he labels the majority of the play’s action as “not limited to the homosexual struggle of one man” but the “flickering , ... (you omitted a word so need to include an ellipsis and also you forgot the comma) interplay of live human beings”, the audience begins to understand that Brick’s alcoholism and subsequent liminalitybe careful with this word and its context is caused by his materialistic family and not “the one clean and true thing” that was his relationship with Skipper. Indeed, Brick’s disillusionment with the ideals possessed by his financially motivated relatives results in his position ofnot needed helplessness whereupon'characterised by a reliance on...' is more fitting he relies on an artificial “click” to grant him the piecepeace he longs to experience. The hyper-materialistic and “deceitful” Pollitt family act as the product of the ironicallyyou need to explain how it is ironic coveted American Dream, and as a result, the family’s actions and behaviour resultssubject verb agreement in a questioning of Western societal ideals, supporting the existence of a hierarchical class conflict. Through his depiction of Brick as a “broken man”, Williams constructs an image of Brick that is extremelyparticularly pertinent, due to his cyclical dependency on money to fuel his alcoholism. Thusthis ultimately presentings an irony, where Brick’s solace of “Echo Spring” can only be achieved through his family’s exploitation of the lower class and continual funding ofthe money doesn't fund his devotion, it facilitates and perpetuates it his “devotion to the occupation of drinking”. Brick’s isolation from his family acts as the physical manifestation of his alcoholism;] an indictment of the upper class spoils which are gained through the exploitation of the lower class and reflect a failure to deal with the “inadmissible” truth regarding the source of his wealth.it's unclear what you're trying to say here. the semicolon should be used to relate the two sentences. the part following it doesn't relate to the part before it. i like the central focus of this paragraph, but you need to provide a bit more textual evidence for your interpretation.

The mercenary capitalist structure which underpins 1950’s the apostrophe is not needed southern America imposes stringent and contrived ideals that culminate in the bitter and lonely unisonthis is an oxymoron (which is bad in writing) between Brick and Maggie. Exacerbating the loneliness of Maggie through her tragic evocationthis is not an evocation, “living with somebody you love can be lonelier than living entirely alone”, Williams highlights the isolatorythis isn't a word. you could replace it with 'isolation that ensues... from' effects of Brick’s “detachment” from his capitalist family. “Disgust[ed]” by his family’s exploitative nature, Brick withdraws from “the flickering interplay”never use a quote more than once that is the ongoing conflict ofin his family, rejecting Maggie’s sexual advances. As a result of Brick’s “detachment”never use a quote more than once, Maggie's attempts to protectmaintain the integrity ofwithin her marriage in order to prevent herself from “dying poor”.are Aa reflection of the consumer dominatedfinancially motivated society that surrounds them, Maggie’s performance revolves around her projection of opulence and desirability to assert dominance over her relatives and the lower class slaves of the Pollitt familyhow do you know she's asserting her dominance over the slaves?. AdoptingDonning “mascara”, “bracelets” and an “ivory slip of lace”the quote is "slip of ivory satin lace". don't rearrange the words, and if you omit a word, use an ellipsis, she manipulates her surroundingswhat surroundings? to attempt to secure her financial prosperity. Serving as a reflectionReflecting upon the social climate of 1950’s society, Williams suggests that a projection of one’s prosepity and financial success was deemed acceptable and somewhatnot the right word admirable during this Cold War era. Indeed, presenting Maggie as a lonely and over-indulgent wife, and Brick as a crippled, alcoholic husband, Williams presents a striking contrast to the “beaming smile” of Lacey and Sookey. Portraying the upper class as dejected and deplorable, and the lower class as optimistic and generous, Williams’ play presentsis a scathing reflectionindictment of the exploitative nature of the upper class, reinforcing the Marxist notion of a continual and cyclical conflict ofbetween class ideals and image.

Even Williams, to an extent, disregards the importance of slavery on the plantation and in supporting the wider capitalist structure of Cold War Americathis is an incomplete sentence. His usual elaborate and extensive stage directions become less descriptive and astute in their requirements of Lacey and Sookey most notably through “One of the Negroes enter, either Lacey or Sookey”. Suggesting that the relevance and importance of either character asis secondary to the conflict of the play, Williams, can be seen toas perpetuating the dismissive view of the lower class possessed by upper class Americathe phrasing is a bit messy. you could use 'the denigratory views on racial minorities held by upper class America. In unison with Big Daddy’s constant proclamation “that [he] built the place”, a subtle juxtaposition of the deceitful and financially motivated upper class Pollitt’s against the helpful and compliant African-American workers begins to arise.this sentence doesn't make sense. Whether it is Big Mama’s “fat fist clenching [her] mouth” or Mae’s face that contorts “horribly”, Williams presents the Pollitt family as miserable and unadmirablethose examples aren't 'miserable and unadmirable' despite their considerable wealth. It is through this representation that Williams tragically highlights the isolation of the Pollitt’s and disillusionment that they experience.those examples don't highlight any 'isolation' or 'disillusionment' The pertinent image of a “shrill” Maggie questioning herself, asking “who are you?” presents an image of a grown woman, who at the admission of herself, and despite her opulent jewellery and “slip of ivory ... lace”don't reuse quotes., remains unaware of her true identity and purpose in life. Lamenting that such materialistic ambitions culminate in the decay of one’s mental health, but the prosperity of one’s material wealth, Williams asserts that the confines of a hyper-consumerist society ultimately results in the utter isolation and implosion of those who seek the American Dream.this sentence dosen't make sense.

ThroughA social commentary on the effects of the elusive American Dream on one's own psyche, Williams emphasises that the relentless pursuit of fameyou didn't mention fame anywhere except when you mentioned Brick was a star, fortune and the American Dream ultimately culminates in the isolation and reduction of upper class individuals. Williams asserts that a constant failure to realise the “inadmissible”never use a quote more than once source of their financial prosperitythis is a pleonasm. you don't need 'financial'. eventuate in the Pollitt's intrinsicthis word connotes a natural quality to something. i wouldn't consider their feud natural. and bitter feud for “the biggest land on the Mississippi Delta”.

Overall, a solid essay  . Areas for improvement include fixing your contradictory sentences, incorporating more textual evidence (and thus more analysis), and proofreading. Also, make sure not to keep repeating the same words or phrases.

[hums_student]

snip

Hey! I'll give this a go, though take the corrections with a grain of salt as I'm also a current student.
I'm doing Cat as well, albeit from a different lens.
---
In the play Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Williams offers a harsh but realistic portrayal of the American Dream through offering an opposing depiction to the US public’s social, political, and cultural views (add a time frame, eg. views of the 1950s). The play demonstrates how public illusions pertaining to the American Dream stifle and suppress non-normative ideas regarding sexuality, wealth and prosperity, legacy, power, and freedom. and Through this Williams suggests that the economic stability and happiness the American people are after through the pursuit of the American Dream is a myth which may provide an appearance of fulfilment, but cannot offer an inner, spiritual prosperity.

Williams challenges the truthfulness and validity of the American Dream through offering a subverted and anti-heroic portrayal of Brick, whose outer image represents the most empowered demographic of 1950s American society. Brick’s appearance, which radiates the epitome of masculinity, as well as his background as a celebrated athlete and being the son of a self-made millionaire provides him with the perfect façade of living embodying in the American Dream. However, this seemingly flawless exterior is tarnished by physical attributes such as his limp and his alcoholism, as well as his suppressed homosexuality which is condemned by the heavily conformist and conservative American public. By this portrayal of a depressed, alcoholic, and limping former football hero, Williams introduces a sense of confusion and disorder to a seemingly stable and flourishing environment, challenging the notion of the American Dream that the achievement of a successful career fulfils one’s life. (Might want to add some quotes to back up your discussion.)

This idea is further reinforced through showing that Brick injured himself jumping hurdles, because ‘people liked to do what they used to do, long after they’ve stopped being able to do it’. Williams, through Brick, reflects the American public to be deeply immersed in their past conservative ideas, being unable to see that the needs of the society is changing. Brick’s act of attempting to jump hurdles emphasises the collective American identity of the 1950s, where the public pushed for a regression to the social conventions and expectations which were shattered during World War II. Through Brick’s injury in his attempts to relive his formerly, socially accepted ‘masculine’ self, Williams highlights the harmful effects of this conservative idea of moral correction on concerns regarding masculinity and sexuality by showing that these traditional values forced upon members of society ultimately cripples them physically, mentally, and spiritually, and confines them to their individual cages from which they cannot escape from. Through this, Williams seeks to subvert the fixed binaries concerning masculinity and sexuality espoused by 1950s’ conservative values.

Furthermore, Williams scathingly critiques material riches emphasised by the American Dream by depicting those in pursuit of it to be trapped and caged by their desires, despite the ‘freedom’ it appears to offer. Through the character of Maggie, the playwright seemingly portrays a textbook character of one who has achieved the American dream after escaping poverty, which appears to align with the concept that the equality of opportunity is available to all (maybe define the 'American Dream' towards the start of the essay instead). However, Williams illustrates the devastating impacts of Maggie’s desire for material riches by showing that her wish for wealth and inheritance caused her to be caged in a loveless marriage with a man who cannot stand her, urging the audience to see the failure of her personal life which came as a result of her achievement of the prosperous American Dream. In his essay ‘Victims and Divided People’, critic Timpane argues that Maggie’s personal failures were caused not by the forces of male dominance, patriarchy, or misogyny, but rather by ‘her own predilection for destruction, that is, her own desires’. (give example to back up critic) Through this, Williams condemns the destructive nature of the American Dream in its emphasis of material success at the expense of personal relationships. By depicting Maggie to be trapped in her desire for wealth, Williams disputes the concept of freedom in regards to the American Dream.

Finally, Williams condemns the rapacious materialism of American Dream as barbaric, exposes exposingthe fleetingness of material possessions through the Pollitt family’s love of materialistic luxuries and wealth. Williams describes Big Mama’s clothing pattern as the ‘markings of some massive animal’, which is immediately followed by descriptions of her ‘great diamonds and many pearls’, associating her materialistic possessions with ‘beastly’ qualities, proposing the suggestion of her love of these riches are barbaric despite her civilised image. (there are also some quotes from Big Daddy - 'the human animal is a beast' - they seem to work nicely here.) Additionally, Williams challenges the idea of financial success as an accurate measure of achievement through the character of Big Daddy, by portraying a prosperous and successful cotton plantation owner who appears to have it all, and yet is dying of terminal cancer with no means of passing on his legacy. Through this, Williams offer an elevated sense of insecurity and fear which starkly contrasts to the optimism and confidence of the public. The playwright demonstrates the capitalist material excess that has manifested deep within the collective American identity through his characters who grapple at the empty concepts of wealth, legacy, and prosperity, and urges American society to see beyond its shallow pursuit of materialism.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof challenges the perceived notion of the freedom, success, and prosperity which the American Dream claims to offer by demonstrating its crushing effects beneath the surface to those who pursue it. By painting this concept as oppressive, destructive, barbaric, and short-lived, Williams offer a harsh condemnation of the American Dream by depicting it as the factor which causes American society to be trapped on top of a hot tin roof from which it refuses to escape from.

[landem]

Hi!  I'm doing lit 3/4 currently, with A Taste of Honey for lit perspectives and The Leopard for close analysis. I'm not super sure if these are common texts to do- but if anyone's happy to give me any kind of feedback that'd be lovely <3. I got high 90s for both of these SACs but I'm not sure how they'll scale!

ATOH-
Shelagh Delaney’s ‘repartee-style dialogue’ and ruthless optimism within the text portrays a socioeconomic position which many theatregoers and critics would have considered ‘filthy’ and ‘rotten’, and which the author herself names ‘drab’ and ‘comfortless’; regardless, Delaney subverts these assumptions to present an ensemble of characters who are animated, lively and ‘witty’, and which live with the chains of the lower classes without having their spirits broken.

Delaney, who was unashamed of being from the same lower-class part of society, recognised the under-representation of working-class people within British theatre and as part of the ‘kitchen-sink realism’ genre, elected to produce a work that didn’t name them ‘miserable’. Jo, a young, poor and pregnant lower-class girl, is ‘valiantly unresigned’ to her fate; Helen, although a ‘semi-whore’, freely chooses to marry Peter to further her own aims; and Geoff, who is subject to perceived gender expectations, finds contentment and purpose by being naturally maternal, in that he ‘likes babies’ and ‘would make somebody a wonderful wife’. Here, we can see Delaney representing the plight of the lower-class as ‘guardedly optimistic’; she uses social taboos such as sex work, miscegenation and homosexuality, in a slightly unrealistic amalgamation, to illustrate the less-desirable characteristics of a lower-class lifestyle.

The text is evidence of the poor being able to be ‘proud’, even if their environment is such that more wealthy characters, such as Peter, claim that ‘nobody could live [there]’. Despite condemning Jo to repeat the same cyclical nature of poverty as her mother, Delaney doesn’t mark her as doomed, structurally; although pregnant and unmarried girls should be ‘despondent’, Jo’s ‘zest for life’ is untampered, despite some ‘performances’ which are only illustrations of desperation.

Delaney’s deliberate use of a Manchurian accent to typify her characters, as well as short, back-and-forth dialogue, is part of a larger style necessary to any author trying to accredit Lancashire’s significance as a backdrop for social commentary and opportunity for art. Delaney is trying to record the ‘wonder of life as she lives it’, which, as not only a female playwright but as a teenager, she struggled to express; not due to lack of writing skill or ‘form’ as some critics utilising patriarchal reductive thinking claimed at the time of production, but because of the risk of the play being inaccessible if she did so. Delaney struggled to be taken as seriously as male, middle-aged playwrights, and as such had to limit her social commentary so as not to be too far isolated. Regardless, she still includes some structural features which point to a larger picture, something else which the author was trying to communicate despite semiotics: the binary between reality and what the characters wish for, as the nature of the prejudice and disparity within the play. When Jo fails to tell her mother that Jimmie, and therefore Helen’s grandchild, ‘will be black’, Delaney is elucidating that Jo is ashamed of her fiancé being ‘black as coal’, and wishes that someone white (such as Geoffrey) was the father, perhaps suggesting why she lets Geof be her ‘big sister’ and part of her household. Also, Helen using Peter for her own ends proves that people who live in Lancashire aren’t necessarily left without a way out of ‘this hole’; upon returning from living with Peter, Helen claims that Jo’s flat is a ‘pigsty’, and those that live there are the ‘pigs’. Although life with Peter was only ‘good while it lasted’, Helen had temporarily moved up in wealth, if not in class; and whilst Helen cuts off Jo’s realisation of her dreams when she tries to discuss them, she has at least realised her own, lending credibility to the belief that life in Manchester is not necessarily as bleak as 1950s theatre would have promoted. These juxtapositions demonstrate the truth Delaney was trying to communicate; poverty is not always hopeless.

The prevailing ‘good cheer’ of the play is at the essence of Delaney’s criticism of society; she places characters in ‘miserable’ contexts, but declares them ‘indestructible’ because of it, not least because that context is Lancashire; Jo, Helen and Geof are emboldened by their ‘lot’ in life precisely because the expectation is that they will fail and become desperately poor, rather than have an ‘appetite for life’ in spite of it. The working class, as portrayed by Delaney, are not condemned by their circumstance as much as they are bolstered by and ‘[survive]’ with it. The author’s documentation of ‘life as she lives it’ will ‘go on’, as will Honey’s characters, for in the face of relentless adversity, Delaney claims, ‘zest for life’ flourishes.

The Leopard-
The numerous romantic and ‘sensual’ metaphors, characteristic of Lampedusa’s writing, are inevitably found in all three passages. The ‘instincts’ and ‘love-scenery’ of the Palace at Donnafugata are echoed later in the text in Angelica’s ‘traces of beauty’ and ‘[grace]’, but ultimately Lampedusa places the main passage of ‘sensual anticipation’ in a part of the text at which this ‘love’ is a last hurrah of the ‘old way of things’; the ‘instincts’ which had ‘awoken’ were never so intense again throughout the novel. The death of the social class which were enjoying ‘that autumn in Donnafugata’ is foreshadowed continuously by the author, to remind us of the ‘ephemeral’ ‘grandeur’ of the aristocracy, and its looming and inevitable ‘[surrender]’ to ‘Garibaldi’.
The Kingdom of Two Sicilies, or the ‘lonely faithless land’, is eventually lost to the ‘Risorgimento’, and quickly its ‘[customs]’ were abandoned for the ‘new way of things’; as Fabrizio had expected, the ‘traces of Donnafugata’ were ‘rubbed off’. This leaves him as the last ‘Leopard’ and ‘Prince of Salina’; here, the author is creating a representation of his own life, in which he was the last ‘Prince of Lampedusa’, part of an ‘unlucky generation, swung between the old and the new’.
The decay of old social structures also allows the author to demonstrate the decline of the role of the Church within society; ‘religious fervor’ soon gives way to disrespect of the Salina name, when the ‘Relics’ are found to be fraudulent. This happens almost ‘unconsciously’ to most characters, but Lampedusa sows seeds of doubt about the ‘prestige’ of the Church early on by reducing Father Pirrone to a ‘sheep-dog’, in this way elucidating the inevitable failure of Roman Catholicism to stay as relevant to the meritocracy as it was to the aristocracy. Religion does not catalyse or contribute to the loss of power of men like Fabrizio; rather, Lampedusa constructs it as a symptom of the dismantling of old ‘[customs]’ in favour of the ‘arrival’ of the Unification in Sicily, which he neither upholds nor condemns; instead opting to evoke in the audience an emotional response to the loss of the ‘slightly shabby grandeur’ of the ‘Kingdom of Two Sicilies’. Through this, the author seeks to record a series of events as relevant to him in 1950 as it was to the real aristocracy in 1860 in Sicily, nearly 100 years prior.
The meritocracy, like Angelica, is ‘[hazily enthusiastic]’ about these changes, and ‘[averse]’ to the ‘old’ social constructs. As a nod to the eventual victory of the meritocracy, Lampedusa puts the lasting ‘characteristics’ of Angelica’s personality down to Tancredi, a proponent of the Revolution, and attributes her death to the ‘illness’ ‘secreted deep in her blood’.
Here Lampedusa suggests that Angelica’s ‘meek and slighted youth’ has affected her, despite ‘[rubbing] off’ the ‘accent and manners’ of her hometown. Her ‘camouflage’ ultimately does not provide her with any protection from the death of the aristocracy, under which she was born into as property and into which she married; in essence, she lived as part of the aristocracy and becomes a ‘wretched spectre’ later in life because of it, implying that her ‘youth’ eventually is the cause of her death. The malaise felt throughout the entire text ensures that no characters find ‘a moment’s peace’, and are always ‘restless’; although current power structures ‘[numb] them with fear’. The Prince’s lack of ‘[reproval]’ in terms of the Revolution ultimately mirrors the equivalent reaction of Lampedusa to his situation. All events in the text are inevitable.

[erinations]

Hey guys! With the LIT exam right around the corner, I'm in a bit of a pickle. I chose Literature over English mainly because my school really gambles with English teachers (and my blocking wouldn't have given me the best results unfortunately) and I love reading classic literature over articles. However, I really don't have great vocabulary or syntax or anything really and would like some help in marking my essays and giving me a realistic range (my teacher is unfortunately unavailable to do this!) I've been reading some top essay examples from previous exams, and I know there's no way I can compare but I'm hoping to score as well as possible.

Prompt: Greed is condemned in this novella. This is the ultimate goal. Discuss.

----

   In the critically acclaimed novella ‘Heart of Darkness’ by Joseph Conrad, the systematic annexation and exploitation of Africa is recognised as the result of the rapacity used as the foundation of European colonisation. It can be claimed that the destabilisation of Kurtz in form of his moral descent was precipitated by the corruption of materialism prevalent in European society. Furthering materialistic denunciation is the wastefulness of imperialistic efforts made in colonisation and the contradiction posed by Marlow who reprimands the treatment of natives but simultaneously worships the works of Kurtz.

When embarking on a journey for “ivory”, a symbol of wealth and power obtained by the complexity of exploitation, it is revealed that the motives of Kurtz lies within the influence of Western Consumerism. The acknowledgement that his–or even Marlow’s–journey did not begin on the borders of Africa but in the heart of the “sepulchral city” of European society is in cognisance of motives stemming from the societal differences of Imperialism. Later surfaced in the novella is the concept of wealth equalling personal value when Marlow is privy to the disapproval “her [The Intended’s] people” had on Kurtz. This results in an “impatience of comparative poverty” driving him right into the “heart of darkness,” symbolic for the revelation of corruption and avarice when journeying into the Congo. Kurtz’s inability to appeal to the parents of his Intended due to his lack of material wealth exemplifies the standard necessity of status and affluence to be deemed acceptable in late 1800s European society. It becomes transparent that greed is an extension of values perpetuated by Western Civilisation and is practiced by the Intended’s parents as a means to criticise the inequality surfaced by European class structure.

   In concomitance to the “wanton smash up” observed throughout his “oblique” descent down a hill, Marlow is confronted with a "sordid" reality to the wastefulness of Western savagery. The guise of “philanthropic desire” depicted upon a purposeless “vast, artificial hole” manifests in the historical deformation that is Imperialism. Built upon the principle of degeneration, a civilisation forced to conform to the nature of sophistication perceived by the “white man” must withstand the exploitations of their people, their wealth, and their resources. From the onset of the novella, Marlow subtly reveals his perspective to listeners upon the Nellie, as well as readers of the story, that “the conquest of the earth…is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much,” condemning European aggression to be the economic rape of an unsuspecting nation. At the base station, Marlow encounters an unpalatable awareness of the unjust treatment of natives. The image Conrad conjures of seeing “every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope,” is inescapable to Marlow as his sudden relocation simply enforces the viewing of natives “clinging to the earth…in all the attitudes of pain, abandonment, and despair.” They worked until they became “sickened, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and rest.” Once their duty was completed, the African natives were left to die. The backward ideology of civilising an innocent continent is strengthened by Marlow’s sarcastic responses to the “high and just proceedings” where men were sent “into the depths of darkness, and in return came a precious trickle of ivory.” This “darkness” Conrad depicts is symbolic for the depths of greed and exploitation European “pilgrims” (nicknamed in irony for the proclamation that they’re anything but) have reached for even the slightest amount of social advancement in their Western civilisation. However, juxtaposing the literal wastefulness of European implements in Africa comes the desultory efforts of the Accountant, whose affectations are of no larger purpose. Taking it upon himself to “teach” the native women about the station, difficulty arose in the aspect in which “she had a distaste for the work.” Evidently, Conrad subtly opposes this system of conquest exploitation and uncovers that in the blindness of avidity for ivory, colonialists fail to illustrate a picture bigger than “to make money, of course.”

   Marlow thus accomplishes a contradiction; despite condemning the scathing treatment blasted upon natives who “didn’t deserve this” Marlow remains indifferent and almost infatuated by the prospect of knowing Kurtz, their greatest exploiter. A narrative description for this “ascetic” sailor is challenged by the nonchalance in reaction to the mistreated natives but clear appraisal for the “miracle” of the Accountant. Concomitant to the wastefulness of Imperial intents, the Accountant is rendered unnecessary to the events of the novel. The information on Kurtz could have been delivered to Marlow by anyone, but Conrad utilizes his character to be symbolic of the importance placed on the profit margin. Despite the lie of colonisation based on the forefront of “weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways” through the introduction of Christianity, no such enquiry is made. There is no mention of a priest of preacher through the entirety of the novel, but there is material gain prevalent in the representation of the Accountant. Marlow becomes infatuated with the economic idolization of Kurtz (** insert quote maybe **) as brought about by the Accountant, fortifying the efforts made by Conrad to acknowledge the lies of Imperialism at the peak of European colonisation. He further debates the confliction of an imperialist benefactor who morally opposes the conquest of a nation, but fantasizes upon their greatest exploiter through Marlow’s unwitting endorsement of Western capitalistic normative values where a person’s acceptability is determined by their wealth, or as perceived in the Congo, the amount of ivory they bring in. Kurtz is glanced upon from the top of an incredibly high pedestal built on the backs of the savage “tribes” who participated, seemingly unknowingly, in the “raid” of their country. Though Kurtz was an ordinary man, he could not be “judged” as such due to his success in delivering the “precious trickle of ivory”. However, readers are positioned to witness Kurtz’s moral descent when made aware of the extent of his desperation to grasp every last trickle of ivory. The Russian recalls a time where he would have shot him "unless [he] gave him the ivory” justified by the notion that “there was nothing on earth to prevent him from killing whom he jolly well pleased.” It is later revealed through the Russian’s recollection of Kurtz that every “ivory hunt” led him to “forget himself amongst these people [the natives]” thus displaying the role of greed in Imperialist ideology and its inescapability. The corruption and depravity of sensibility as initiated by a sudden exposure to power and wealth is used by Conrad to ultimately bare truth to the inequality and injustices brought about by colonialism thus condemning greed to a shallow destabilisation of morality.

[clarke54321]

Hi!  I'm doing lit 3/4 currently, with A Taste of Honey for lit perspectives and The Leopard for close analysis. I'm not super sure if these are common texts to do- but if anyone's happy to give me any kind of feedback that'd be lovely <3. I got high 90s for both of these SACs but I'm not sure how they'll scale!

ATOH-
Shelagh Delaney’s ‘repartee-style dialogue’ and ruthlesssome examiners would class this as absolutist language. So, it's best to refrain from early judgements. optimism within the text portrays a socioeconomic position which many theatregoers and critics would have watch out for subjective language- may have been inclined to consider, may have typically, etc.considered ‘filthy’ and ‘rotten’, and which the author herself names ‘drab’ and ‘comfortless’; regardless, Delaney subverts these assumptions to present an ensemble of characters who are animated, lively and ‘witty’, and which live with the chains of the lower classes without having their spirits broken. This is a fairly solid introduction. Perhaps you could expand further on why the lower classes carry this stigma- what separates these people from the intended audience members?

Delaney, who was unashamed of being from the same lower-class part of society, recognised the under-representation of working-class people within British theatre and as part of the ‘kitchen-sink realism’ genre, elected to produce a work that didn’t name them ‘miserable’be careful not to transform this essay into a biographical recount. Topic sentences should encompass an argument.. Jo, a young, poor and pregnant lower-class girl, is ‘valiantly unresigned’ to her fate; Helen, although a ‘semi-whore’, freely chooses to marry Peter to further her own aims; and Geoff, who is subject to perceived gender expectations, finds contentment and purpose by being naturally maternal, in that he ‘likes babies’ and ‘would make somebody a wonderful wife’. Here, we can see Delaney representing the plight of the lower-class as ‘guardedly optimistic’; she uses social taboos such as sex work, miscegenation and homosexuality, in a slightly unrealistic amalgamation, to illustrate the less-desirable characteristics of a lower-class lifestyle You've picked out excellent evidence to make this point. However, I'd encourage you to let your analysis lead you to your ultimate conclusion. Why are these 'less-desirable characteristics'?.

The text is evidence of the poor being able to be ‘proud’, even if their environment is such that more wealthy characters, such as Peter, claim that ‘nobody could live [there]’. Despite condemning Jo to repeatneeds rephrasing the same cyclical nature of poverty as her mother, Delaney doesn’t mark her as doomed, structurallyexcellent point, can you provide evidence/analysis for this?; although pregnant and unmarried girls should be ‘despondent’, Jo’s ‘zest for life’ is untampered, despite some ‘performances’ which are only illustrations of desperation.

Delaney’s deliberate use of a Manchurian accent to typify her characters, as well as short, back-and-forth dialogue, is part of a larger style necessary to any authorsubjective trying to accredit Lancashire’s significance as a backdrop for social commentary and opportunity for art. Delaney is trying to record the ‘wonder of life as she lives it’, which, as not only a female playwright but as a teenager, she struggled to express; not due to lack of writing skill or ‘form’ as some critics utilising patriarchal reductive thinking claimed at the time of production can you include the sentiments of these scholars?, but because of the risk of the play being inaccessible if she did so. Delaney struggled to be taken as seriously as male, middle-aged playwrightsas I mentioned earlier, it's important to keep the focus of this essay on the world of the text- not the playwright. You can definitely talk about the styles/techniques that the playwright adopts to convey your contention, but this should be about it., and as such had to limit her social commentary so as not to be too far isolated. Regardless, she still includes some structural features which point to a larger picture, something else which the author was trying to communicate despite semiotics: the binary between reality and what the characters wish for, as the nature of the prejudice and disparity within the play. When Jo fails to tell her mother that Jimmie, and therefore Helen’s grandchild, ‘will be black’, Delaney is elucidating that Jo is ashamed of her fiancé being ‘black as coal’, and wishes that someone white (such as Geoffrey) was the father, perhaps suggesting why she lets Geof be her ‘big sister’ and part of her household. Also, Helen using Peter for her own ends proveswatch this language that people who live in Lancashire aren’t necessarily left without a way out of ‘this hole’; upon returning from living with Peter, Helen claims that Jo’s flat is a ‘pigsty’, and those that live there are the ‘pigs’. Although life with Peter was only ‘good while it lasted’, Helen had temporarily moved up in wealth, if not in class; and whilst Helen cuts off Jo’s realisation of her dreams when she tries to discuss them, she has at least realised her own, lending credibility to the belief that life in Manchester is not necessarily as bleak as 1950s theatre would have promoted. These juxtapositions demonstrate the truth Delaney was trying to communicate; poverty is not always hopeless excellent analysis of technique. The second half of your paragraph is what you should be developing through a whole one..

The prevailing ‘good cheer’ of the play is at the essence of Delaney’s criticism of society; she places characters in ‘miserable’ contexts, but declares them ‘indestructible’ because of it, not least because that context is Lancashire; Jo, Helen and Geof are emboldened by their ‘lot’ in life precisely because the expectation is that they will fail and become desperately poor, rather than have an ‘appetite for life’ in spite of it. The working class, as portrayed by Delaney, are not condemned by their circumstance as much as they are bolstered by and ‘[survive]’ with it. The author’s documentation of ‘life as she lives it’ will ‘go on’, as will Honey’s characters, for in the face of relentless adversity, Delaney claims, ‘zest for life’ flourishes.Very nice conclusion. I think you've done a good job with the essay. To improve, I'd encourage you to refrain from including irrelevant, biographical facts about the author, and spend more time developing analysis that is central to the world of the text.

The Leopard-
The numerous romantic and ‘sensual’ metaphors, characteristic of Lampedusa’s writing, are inevitably found in all three passages here is a good opportunity to comment on their larger significance.. The ‘instincts’ and ‘love-scenery’ of the Palace at Donnafugata are echoed later in the text in Angelica’s ‘traces of beauty’ and ‘[grace]’, but ultimately Lampedusa places the main passage of ‘sensual anticipation’ in a part of the text at which this ‘love’ is a last hurrah of the ‘old way of things’; the ‘instincts’ which had ‘awoken’ were never so intense again throughout the novel excellent synthesising. The death of the social class which were enjoying ‘that autumn in Donnafugata’ is foreshadowed continuously by the author, to remind us of the ‘ephemeral’ ‘grandeur’ of the aristocracy, and its looming and inevitable ‘[surrender]’ to ‘Garibaldi’.
The Kingdom of Two Sicilies, or the ‘lonely faithless land’, is eventually lost to the ‘Risorgimento’, and quickly its ‘[customs]’ were abandoned for the ‘new way of things’; as Fabrizio had expected, the ‘traces of Donnafugata’ were ‘rubbed off’. This leaves him as the last ‘Leopard’ and ‘Prince of Salina’; here, the author is creating a representation of his own life, in which he was the last ‘Prince of Lampedusa’, part of an ‘unlucky generation, swung between the old and the new’while you are connecting evidence seamlessly, it is important that you take the time to analyse the significance of the language used. Golden rule: don't let the evidence do the analysis for you..
The decay of old social structures also allows the author to demonstrate the decline of the role of the Church within society; ‘religious fervor’ soon gives way to disrespect of the Salina name, when the ‘Relics’ are found to be fraudulent. This happens almost ‘unconsciously’ to most characters, but Lampedusa sows seeds of doubt about the ‘prestige’ of the Church early on by reducing Father Pirrone to a ‘sheep-dog’, in this way elucidating the inevitable failure of Roman Catholicism to stay as relevant to the meritocracy as it was to the aristocracynice V+V statement, but how did you get here? Tease out the metaphor of the 'sheep-dog.'. Religion does not catalyse or contribute to the loss of power of men like Fabrizio; rather, Lampedusa constructs it as a symptom of the dismantling of old ‘[customs]’ in favour of the ‘arrival’ of the Unification in Sicily, which he neither upholds nor condemns; instead opting to evoke in the audience an emotional response tofor the loss of the ‘slightly shabby grandeur’ of the ‘Kingdom of Two Sicilies’. Through this, the author seeks to record a series of events as relevant to him in 1950 as it was to the real aristocracy in 1860 in Sicily, nearly 100 years prior.continue to evaluate whether these biographical references are contributing anything important to your analysis
The meritocracy, like Angelica, is ‘[hazily enthusiastic]’ about these changes, and ‘[averse]’ to the ‘old’ social constructs. As a nod to the eventual victory of the meritocracy, Lampedusa puts the lasting ‘characteristics’ of Angelica’s personality down to Tancredi, a proponent of the Revolution, and attributes her death to the ‘illness’ ‘secreted deep in her blood’.
Here Lampedusa suggests that Angelica’s ‘meek and slighted youth’ has affected her, despite ‘[rubbing] off’ the ‘accent and manners’ of her hometown. Her ‘camouflage’ ultimately does not provide her with any protection from the death of the aristocracy, under which she was born into as property and into which she married; in essence, she lived as part of the aristocracy and becomes a ‘wretched spectre’ later in life because of it, implying that her ‘youth’ eventually is the cause of her death. The malaise felt throughout the entire text ensures that no characters find ‘a moment’s peace’, and are always ‘restless’; although current power structures ‘[numb] them with fear’. The Prince’s lack of ‘[reproval]’ in terms of the Revolution ultimately mirrors the equivalent reaction of Lampedusa to his situation. All events in the text are inevitable. Again, you've done quite a good job with this CPA. As I've noted throughout my correction, you are using excellent quotes to support your overall interpretation. However, to strengthen the quality of your work, I'd strongly encourage you to spend more time analysing the particular language used. Don't allow the evidence to do this for you.

[clarke54321]

Hey guys! With the LIT exam right around the corner, I'm in a bit of a pickle. I chose Literature over English mainly because my school really gambles with English teachers (and my blocking wouldn't have given me the best results unfortunately) and I love reading classic literature over articles. However, I really don't have great vocabulary or syntax or anything really and would like some help in marking my essays and giving me a realistic range (my teacher is unfortunately unavailable to do this!) I've been reading some top essay examples from previous exams, and I know there's no way I can compare but I'm hoping to score as well as possible.

Prompt: Greed is condemned in this novella. This is the ultimate goal. Discuss.

----

   In the critically acclaimed novella ‘Heart of Darkness’ by Joseph Conrad, the systematic annexation and exploitation of Africa is recognised as the result of the rapacity used as the foundation of European colonisation strong opening. It can be claimed that the destabilisation of Kurtz in the form of his moral descent was precipitated by the corruption of materialism prevalent in European society. Furthering materialistic denunciationthe denunciation of materalism is the wastefulness of imperialistic efforts made in colonisation and the contradiction posed by Marlow who reprimands the treatment of natives but simultaneously worships the works of Kurtz. Take the opportunity to close the introduction with the main point delivered by Conrad. That is, provide your reader with some kind of direction for the rest of the essay.

When embarking on a journey for “ivory”, a symbol of wealth and power obtained by the complexity of exploitation you need to first analyse the implications of 'ivory' before you classify it as a symbol of X, it is revealed that the motives of Kurtz lies within the influence of Western Consumerism. The acknowledgement that his–or even Marlow’s–journey did not begin on the borders of Africa but in the heart of the “sepulchral city” of European society is in cognisance of motives stemming from the societal differences of Imperialismhow do we know this?. Later surfaced in the novella is the concept of wealth equalling personal value when Marlow is privy to the disapproval “her [The Intended’s] people” had on Kurtz. This results in an “impatience of comparative poverty” driving him right into the “heart of darkness,” symbolic for the revelation of corruption and avarice when journeying into the Congo again, let the language lead you to this conclusion.. Kurtz’s inability to appeal to the parents of his Intended due to his lack of material wealth exemplifies the standard necessity of status and affluence to be deemed acceptable in late 1800s European society. It becomes transparentopt for a different choice of words. Remember that clarity > overt sophistication that greed is an extension of values perpetuated by Western Civilisation and is practiced by the Intended’s parents as a means to criticise the inequality surfaced by European class structure.Try and entwine more of Conrad in this paragraph.

   In concomitance to the “wanton smash up” observed throughout his “oblique” descent down a hill, Marlow is confronted with a "sordid" reality to the wastefulness of Western savagery. The guise of “philanthropic desire” depicted upon a purposeless “vast, artificial hole” manifests in the historical deformation that is Imperialism. Built upon the principle of degeneration, a civilisation forced to conform to the nature of sophistication perceived by the “white man” must withstand the exploitations of their people, their wealth, and their resources ensure that you are analysing and not retelling. From the onset of the novella, Marlow subtly reveals his perspective to listeners upon the Nellie, as well as readers of the story, that “the conquest of the earth…is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much,” condemning European aggression to be the economic rape of an unsuspecting nation explain how you get to this point. At the base station, Marlow encounters an unpalatable awareness of the unjust treatment of natives. The image Conrad conjures of seeing “every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope,” is inescapable to Marlow as his sudden relocation simply enforces the viewing of natives “clinging to the earth…in all the attitudes of pain, abandonment, and despair.” They worked until they became “sickened, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and rest.” Once their duty was completed, the African natives were left to die. The backward ideology of civilising an innocent continent great that you've identified the resounding V+V. Can you flesh this out further? is strengthened by Marlow’s sarcastic responses to the “high and just proceedings” where men were sent “into the depths of darkness, and in return came a precious trickle of ivory.” This “darkness” Conrad depicts is symbolic for the depths of greed and exploitation European “pilgrims” (nicknamed in irony for the proclamation that they’re anything but)?] have reached for even the slightest amount of social advancement in their Western civilisation. However, juxtaposing the literal wastefulness of European implements in Africa comes the desultory efforts of the Accountant, whose affectations are of no larger purpose. Taking it upon himself to “teach” the native women about the station, difficulty arose in the aspect in which “she had a distaste for the work.” Evidently, Conrad subtly opposeshow do we know this? Tease out the language? this system of conquest exploitation and uncovers that in the blindness of avidity for ivory, colonialists fail to illustrate a picture bigger than “to make money, of course.”

   Marlow thus accomplishes a contradiction; despite condemning the scathing treatment blasted upon natives who “didn’t deserve this”<start a new sentence> Marlow remains indifferent and almost infatuated by the prospect of knowing Kurtz, their greatest exploiter. A narrative description for this “ascetic” sailor is challenged by the nonchalance in reaction to the mistreated natives but clear appraisal for the “miracle” of the Accountant. Concomitant to the wastefulness of Imperial intents, the Accountant is rendered unnecessary to the events of the novel. The information on Kurtz could have been delivered to Marlow by anyone, but Conrad utilizes his character to be symbolic explain how this is soof the importance placed on the profit margin. Despite the lie of colonisation based on the forefront of “weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways” through the introduction of Christianity, no such enquiry is made. There is no mention of a priest of preacher through the entirety of the novel, but there is material gain prevalent in the representation of the Accountant. Marlow becomes infatuated with the economic idolization of Kurtz (** insert quote maybe **) as brought about by the Accountant, fortifying the efforts made by Conrad to acknowledge the lies of Imperialism at the peak of European colonisation excellent. He further debates the confliction of an imperialist benefactor who morally opposes the conquest of a nation, but fantasizes upon their greatest exploiter through Marlow’s unwitting endorsement of Western capitalistic normative values where a person’s acceptability is determined by their wealth, or as perceived in the Congo, the amount of ivory they bring in provide evidence in this sentence. Kurtz is glanced upon from the top of an incredibly high pedestal built on the backs of the savage “tribes” who participated, seemingly unknowingly, in the “raid” of their country. Though Kurtz was an ordinary man, he could not be “judged” as such due to his success in delivering the “precious trickle of ivory”. However, readers are positioned to witness Kurtz’s moral descent when made aware of the extent of his desperationhone in on this occurence to grasp every last trickle of ivory. The Russian recalls a time where he would have shot him "unless [he] gave him the ivory” justified by the notion that “there was nothing on earth to prevent him from killing whom he jolly well pleased.” It is later revealed through the Russian’s recollection of Kurtz that every “ivory hunt” led him to “forget himself amongst these people [the natives]” thus displaying while this language helps you transition from analysis --> V+V, you are letting it take you from evidence --> V+V. Try and adhere to evidence--> analysis --> V+Vthe role of greed in Imperialist ideology and its inescapability. The corruption and depravity of sensibility as initiated by a sudden exposure to power and wealth is used by Conrad to ultimately bare truth to the inequality and injustices brought about by colonialism thus condemning greed to a shallow destabilisation of morality.
 I think you've done a solid job with this essay. You've articulated some excellent ideas throughout. To improve, I'd encourage you to work more on the analysis of language. It is important that you don't bypass this step, and move quickly between evidence and V+V statement. Further, it would be great if you could incorporate and evaluate some of the arguments used by scholars.

[landem]

snip

thankyou so much!!!