VCE Stuff > VCE English Work Submission and Marking

Compilation of Text Response Feedback

<< < (6/31) > >>

brenden:
'Father Barry is the real hero in 'On the Waterfront'. Discuss.'
I'll give it a shot but I've never seen OTW or analysed a film before... Just keep that in mind.
In the film, 'On the Waterfront', the director Elia Kazan explores the corruption surrounding the docks of Hoboken and relates it to the influences of power in the 1950's.I'd contextualise the first sentence (refer to 507's at the top of this page)... Influences of power in the 1950 would make for an excellent contextualising line in reference to the govt=>society (American?) =>xenophobia/racism/discrimination/conservatism.. Yours is also good. Through the film, Kazan exposes what life was like and focuses on what it takes to stand up and be a 'hero'.Good Father Barry is used as one of the main influential characters in the film, and exhibits a heroic figure. Through his stature, the concept of religion and manipulation is explored relative to various characters; and in comparison to the effect it had on Kazan in the 1950s.  However, Father Barry isn't considered to be the 'real' hero, as other characters contribute to the overall development and conclusion of the film, and also affect his decisions. Kazan demonstrates this through character interactions and speech, as well as presenting other characters with heroic qualities, such as Terry's strength and determination to be a 'contender', and stand up to Johnny Friendly and the mob. These events are designed to mimic Kazan's story, to rationalise and justify the unpopular choice he made to testify at the HUAC trials.Sounds quite great. Nice.

Throughout the film, Elia Kazan uses utilises religion as a basis to show the effect it has on the characters, in order to demonstrate the power behind it.  Kazan shows us the influence religion has on Father Barry and his desire to do 'God's will', following Joey Doyle's death. This is primarily shown after Edie asks him, 'Have you ever heard of a saint hiding in a church?'. This prompts him to venture out to the docks the next morning and observe the harsh working lifestyle himself. So far your sentences are quite the same length so the flow is 'bang bang bang'. Try to vary your sentence length. His observations result in him realising that not all is perfect in the world, and in order to do 'God's will' he needs to try to fix the problem. This motivates Father Barry to take action, and try to encourage Dugan and Terry Malloy to stand up against the mob and do what's right. Kazan demonstrates this through Father Barry's interactions with these characters. Father Barry encourages Dugan to take action by promising him that if  'you stand up...I'll stand up with you', to make him feel that he isn't alone in this 'war'. Yep the whole paragraph uses sentences of the same lengt to each other, with one thought per sentence. Doesn't seem to be directly addressing the prompt as strongly as it could be. Also seems like there's a bit of retelling. -wishes he had seen the movie-
To encourage Terry to take action, Kazan initially shows Terry's reluctance and uncertainty towards Father Barry's plan through the use of his jacket. By showing Terry's jacket zipped up, Kazan is able to hint at his feelings of uncertainty. However, as Terry gains more knowledge about the mob, his jacket slowly unzips, which signifys Terry's growing ease, and his alignment with 'good'. Kazan also demonstrates the effect of religion on Father Barry by always showing his face in a light, to show that he is aligned with good, and he isn't corrupted by the mob.  Kazan uses this to show that Father Barry is a hero, as he offers support to those that need extra guidance to take action. These examples are used to also show that with guidance and support, an individual is more likely to come forward and do what is 'right' or expected, as Kazan did at the HUAC trials, despite the repercussions. However, the desire to do what is religiously 'right' can also drive an individual towards using manipulation in order to achieve their goal. There's a bit more sentence variance here but it still is very 'thought. thought. thought."... i feel like there could be more depth/complexity of discussion. Also, prompt?

Through the film, Kazan is able to explore the effects of manipulation, throughdouble use of through makes this sentence funny Father Barry's ability to convince Terry that the right thing to do is stand up to the mob. Kazan uses Father Barry to demonstrate manipulation, in order to show that it isn't always a negative thing. Father Barry's manipulation is shown to be more subtle than the mobs, and is based on planting ideas in Terry's head, and overseeing his actions in order to encourage him to speak out. Sort of reversed problem. Instead of having bangbangbang sentences you've got one sentence that needs the words within to work together better. Double use of 'and' really messes it up Kazan shows this by constantly having Terry meet Father Barry in times of conflict and struggle. These meetings are essential in Terry's discovery of what is right, as well as his growing motivation to stand up to the mob and 'get [his] rights'. Kazan relates these events to McCarthy and HUAC in the way that they both use manipulation in order to encourage speaking out, or naming names. In his autobiography, Kazan describes the growing influence of McCarthy and HUAC in Hollywood as 'A terrible threat was in the air and moving closer...the clouds not grey but black, lightning bolts thrust through the heavy overcast and no on can be sure where they would strike next'. Does your teacher encourage the use of discussing things such as his autobiography? I'm not sure if I would do that or not. I really would have more of a strict discussion of heroism etc.       
Kazan also portrays Father Barry as a puppet master, or a 'Mr Upstairs' of the good. This is shown by having Father Barry overlook Terry's confession to Edie from the fence. It is also demonstrated Sentence starters like this are also encouraging the formulaic nature of your writing. "This is shown." "It is also". "Thought. thought. thought." - y'know? at the end of the film when Father Barry says to Terry, 'Johnny Friendly's laying odds that you won't get up', which prompts Terry to get up and go to work despite having been beaten and in pain.  Kazan uses Father Barry's manipulative acts as a puppet master, to relate to the communists using manipulation in the 1950s.  The communists were using manipulation similar to 'Mr Upstairs', with a single leader calling the shots and overseeing progress. Kazan deliberately uses  both of these types of manipulation to show the audience that everyone was using manipulation.
Although Father Barry is using manipulation, he is still trying to do what is right, and is still a heroic figure in the film, because he is encouraging Terry to change and do the right thing. It is because of this heroic action that Father Barry isn't the real hero, as he encourages Terry to make sacrifices and become a hero himself. Is this intended as a separate para?
Actually I only just looked at your post without reading it.. structurally strange? I'm unsure about how many body paragraphs you were intending to have or why you've split them
Within the film, Kazan investigates what it takes to be a hero. Father Barry is considered a hero throughout the film, as he exhibits heroic qualities. However, he isn't the real hero as other characters affect his decisions and contribute to the outcome of the film.  Kazan demonstrates  other characters exhibiting heroic qualities through Terry Malloy and his decision to stand up to the mob. Kazan shows Terry's strength and determination mainly at the end of the film, after he has been beaten up by Johnny Friendly, and still makes the decision to take the 'chance to win the war' and go to work, despite being in pain. This strength and courage is a true heroic quality and it is what makes a real hero. This development in the film relates to Kazan's story and the difficult decision he made to testify at the HUAC trials. It is also used as a reflection of Kazan's journey and a way for him to justify his informing.This seems like better analysis!
Kazan also presents a heroic quality in Edie's character, after her brother Joey's death at the beginning of the film. Edie displays a heroic quality by initially motivating Father Barry to do the right thing and take action against the mob, by questioning the way he conducts himself and his religious beliefs, by asking him 'Did you ever heard of a saint hiding in a church?'. This prompts Father Barry to go down to the docks and 'take a good look for [himself]'. Kazan uses this event in the film to set the story in motion. Does a heroic quality make a hero?
Although Father Barry provided Terry with guidance and encouragement, he isn't the real hero, as he didn't stand up himself and make a change, instead he recruited others to do the work for him, such as Terry and Dugan. However, the closing shot of the film, with only Edie and Father Barry, indicates that Father Barry is a hero in the film, because he was the one with the power to guide the other characters towards taking down the mob. Kazan ends the film like this to show that although Father Barry isn't the real hero in the film, he is a very influential character with a heroic nature.Good. Nothing has really related to the prompt as much as this.

Kazan represents Father Barry as a main influential character and a heroic figure in the film 'On the Waterfront'. However he isn't considered dont' talk about consideration because you aren't talking about what he is considered as, only what he is. Who knows what other people consider him as?to be the real hero, as other characters contribute to the overall development of the film and the outcome. Kazan explores the influence of religion on various characters, including Father Barry, and manipulation, to demonstrate how it can be used to bring out heroic qualities in an individual, and encourage them to do the right thing. Kazan also  reviews what it takes to be a real hero. By examining these points, Kazan is able to relate these events to his story and justify the decision he made to testify at the HUAC trials. He is also able to prove that although Father Barry is a heroic figure and exhibits a heroic nature, he isn't the real hero.
I think you need to be stronger on the prompt, sort out some strange structural things, sort out the formulaic sentences, analyse more deeply, and perhaps consider revising discussion of things outside of the text (director's life?).. do keep in mind I haven't seen the film, though.

Jeggz:
Hey guys  :) I would really appreciate it if someone could check through this essay and could please give me feedback on my writing.This is my first essay for the year, but go ahead and destroy it :) Thanks in advance!

At the heart of On the Waterfront is an exploration of how individuals are products of their environment.
Set to the background of the corrupt and bleak docks of New Jersey, the 1954 film On the Waterfront elucidates the effects of the environment on the individual. Kazan explores the notion, of how one’s environment influences and thus contributes significantly towards the development of individual traits and characteristics. Despite a shared upbringing, Terry is able to branch out as he is exposed to external influences which steer him in a different direction to that of his brother. Edie is another, whose purity and angelic soul are reflective of her upbringing in the convent, where corruption and injustice are inexistent. Finally, Johnny Friendly’s harsh upbringing has also harboured his ruthless and power-drive disposition, thus proving how he too is a product of his own environment.

The disparities between the Malloy brothers that is seen later on in their lives despite their initial upbringing together, is a result of the different influences that they are each exposed to. Bernstein’s ominous sound track in the opening scene itself illustrates the corruption which is inherent on the waterfront. It is evident that both Charley and Terry have grown up in this world of Johnny Friendly’s amidst the injustice. Terry’s disposition however is different to that of Charley’s as is seen through his care for the pigeons and his fear of them “catching cold.” It is this gentle side of his, which is further developed upon Terry’s encounter with Edie who is “the first nice thing that has happened to (him).”As Terry continues to nurture his relationship with Edie, his moral conscience begins to evolve as well. Nevertheless there are still contradictions present in Terry, which is depicted through the smoke permeating the background of the glove scene, representing Terry’s ambiguous state of mind. Although Terry wishes to remain “DnD”, abiding by his motto of “I don’t know nothing, I haven’t seen nothing, I’m not saying nothing,” a small part of him is drawn towards Edie’s moral goodness, provoking him to stand up for “(his) rights.”Terry’s realisation as a result of his association with Edie, makes it clear that unlike himself Charley has not had the opportunity to evolve but rather has remained to be nothing more than a puppet in Johnny Friendly’s hand. His realisation is complete following Charley’s “crucifixion,” in which he is found to be dead on a hook. It is this tragedy which drives Terry into full action, and although his outer physical self suffers his spiritual and moral identity wins, thus completing his transformation.

Edie’s purity and goodwill is reflective of her upbringing in the convent where she is shielded from corruption and injustice. Right from her introduction into the film, the background lighting upon Edie portrays her in an angelic light, representing how she is shown in all her purity, without even a scruple of evil. It is indisputable that her upbringing in the convent has influenced her to such an extent where she feels that “everybody (should) care about everybody else.”The symbolism which lies behind her white gloves and her brightly-lit scenes alludes to this recurring theme of Edie’s innocence and purity, which even inspires Father Barry himself. Edie is courageous to venture into the harsh male domain of the docks where her presence is looked down upon, as is proven through the overshot of Edie kneeling down over her brother’s dead body. Despite her fragile, weak and vulnerable position in society, it is her moral upbringing which provokes her to confront Terry as to, “how (he can) just sit there and say nothing.” The depth of Edie’s involvement with Terry is illustrated in her desperate words, “Let’s get away...some place we can live in peace.”Edie fears the impact of the corruption upon Terry; despite this however she remains stoic and steadfast by Terry’s side. Thus Edie’s resolve and her moral code of conduct elicit justice for her brother Joey but also transform the lives of Father Barry and Terry Malloy. Her faith in “patience and kindness,” can definitely be attributed to her upbringing in St Anne’s.

Johnny Friendly’s harsh upbringing has also played an instrumental role in moulding him into a power and authority drive man. Right from the onset of the film the viewers are exposed to the smoke and haze which permeates Friendly’s bar, illustrating how his authority is indeed commanding. Bernstein’s ominous score which plays just prior to Joey Doyle’s death alludes to the fact that danger lies ahead. This is further enhanced through the low-angle shot illustrating Johnny’s henchmen upon the rooftop and enunciating the impact of Friendly’s authority on the waterfront. This callous nature of Friendly’s however, can be accounted for by his harsh upbringing as he “begs for work” as a sheer sixteen year old. He carries the large scar on his neck as a constant reminder to how he had to fight some “tough fellas,” to gain control. Friendly’s only opportunity for advancement was through the union and he constantly asserts how he “didn’t work (his) way up from that for nothing.”The symbolism of the hawks resembling Friendly’s henchmen, further pronounces the ultimate power which lies in his hands and how Friendly is prepared to rule with fear and intimidation to keep a stranglehold on the lucrative docks. Although Johnny Friendly is a bully, “a cheap, busy, dirty, stinkin mug, “this is a result of his upbringing which has been anything but smooth sailing. The final scene in which Terry successfully defeats Friendly, gives the impression that Johnny is just another pawn in this cycle of corruption which will forever be a part of the Hoboken docks.

In conclusion, the individuals from the film On the Waterfront all substantiate the notion of being a product of one’s environment. Terry is able to escape the world of corruption through his connection with Edie, unlike Charley who remains under the command of Friendly. Edie’s upbringing in a world away from the docks has also contributed to her strong moral conduct in contrast to the longshoremen. Finally Johnny Friendly’s difficult circumstances in his childhood have also chiselled him into a heartless man, with no affinity for the longshoremen.

brenden:
"The Year of Wonders presents Anna, Michael and others in the village with a time of crisis. Are the changes in these characters always positive? Discuss."
Okay I have no memory of your last essay so I'm marking this as I normally would.
Following the restoration of the English monarchy and the end of the Puritan era, England is ravaged by the pestilence of the Great Plague of London.Woo! Geraldine Brooks explores the differences in how people deal with the hardships they are faced with during the "Plague season" is this a quote from the novel? ifin her historical fiction novel "Year of Wonders". The characters of a country town are exposed to the pain and suffering brought by the Plague in 1665, with many being driven insane from the fear with which they constantly live. For these people, their lack of mental strength causes them great anguish and prevents them from persevering through the challenges before them. Conversely, a minority of characters exhibit remarkable tenacity in the face of crisis and this allows them to evolve, gaining knowledge about the world and moving away from death and "towards life". Great, but this intro is lacking a thesis statement!

Fear is the main catalyst for the loss of many people's sanity and humanity.Good The village's decision to seclude themselves from the rest of the world to prevent the spread of "Plague seeds" confines them within a "wide green prison". The villagers are essentially trapped, forced to attempt to live through a vicious season of death. This decision is met with at least some be definitive worry by everyone in the village, especially the wealthy Bradford family, who actually decide to flee the village, leaving the rest of the village to and leave the rest of the villagers to "satisfy [their] needs" by themselves. Try to stray away from '-ing' words except for when they can't be avoided without sounding oafish... Still lacking analysis so farThe fact people are confined causes great unrest within the village and also outside it, as when Maggie Cantwell and the pantry boy Brand encounter people from other villages, they are met with utter contempt.Still retelly This all goes to cause fear within the minds of the villagers, as no matter how "wide" they venture, they will be unable to escape the effects of the Plague, whether they be literal or consequential. Brooks also makes use of pathetic fallacy when Anna describes an impending storm as "marching" towards her in "advancing columns", as if an army is marching towards her, preparing for war. This can be linked to the same ominous and sickening feeling the villagers experience when they are faced with impending and inevitable death. This feeling drives several people insane, as it did with John Gordon, whose desperation to stave off the plague results in him becoming a murderer and later a flagellant. The image of him mutilating himself for God's mercy is an extreme one and depicts just how profound the changes in certain characters are as a result of being faced with the depressing banality of crisis.What is underlined is much closer to what you want to be. However the constant use of 'this' is killing your flow.

The transformation of Michael Mompellion is a testament to what effect loss and grief can have on even the most strong-willed of individuals.Good topic sentence. Michael Mompellion is the town leader, having a strong connection with God and can be likened to Jesus with his white robe.This is good! but too quick if you get what I mean. You could even discuss similarities between Jesus dying for our sins and Mompellion quarantining the town/ driving himself into the ground for the villagers Mompellion's will far exceeds "his body" motivating him to dig you need some punctuation somewhere in there to convey your meaning better. "six graves" in a single day to ensure the well being of the villagers. He is a determined and resilient man and excels in his moral and ethical attitude. However, with the death of his wife Elinor, Mompellion deteriorates to the point where he is reduced to sitting "all day in the dark, with the shutters closed." His dehumanisation is similar to the decline of Elinor's garden, as no matter whose "hands" tend to it, "yet it will not be her garden", just as he will no longer be "Elinor Mompellion's Michael". Very cool. I wish I were better at YoW myself so I could be more objective.Without Elinor, Michael becomes unhinged. He admits "he was wrong" for believing in God, having lost all faith as a result of Elinor's death, "never open[ing]" his Bible following itit. yucky word. It can leave the reader asking questions and your goal as a writer is to leave the reader with no questions. be more specific so they know entirely you're referring to the death. Michael is a changed individual, stripped of his once God-like character punctuation. Gotta watch that punctuation!he now acts immorally and unjustly, not informing Anna that he "never lay" with Elinor until he had already bedded her. This was to her extreme displeasure and subsequently resulted in Anna leaving town. Needs more analysis for you to be retelling like this. Gotta keep the ratio up to justify any retelling as evidenceFor grief to change a man so drastically shows just how powerful it can be in transforming an individual. Michael Mompellion's loss of faith, character and morals is an extremely negative change that can only be caused by crisis and its effects. The last two sentences are more analytic.

But unlike Nope. Not only are you starting a separate sentence with a conjunction, you're starting a whole paragraph with one! NEVER! Even when you just take out the 'but' this whole sentence sounds better.Michael Mompellion and others that have similarly fallen victim to the strain of the Plague, Much of a redundant sentence, that previous one. You could have just said "Contrary to many, -->" and that's it.Anna Frith's transformation shows what positives can arise from even the most dire of situations. Anna is unlike other weaker characters in the village and evolves from a "timid girl" to an anachronistic woman who has "faced more terrors than many warriors." Through Anna's defiance of traditional gender roles and Michael Mompellion's deterioration, Brooks conveys that women are capable of vastly more than they are generally thought to be in the 17th century. and in the 21st! good. This idea is furthered through Anna's willingness to explore the world of "physick", leaving behind her previous "dark and light" mentality to see how "things stood in the world". Her garnering of knowledge and her forward-thinking attitude shows Anna to have changed dramatically for the bestGood. Anna constantly confronts her most poignant fears, venturing into a mine to perform the same maneuver that killed her husband Sam. When she is covered by the "ore" on the walls of the mine, it is as if the physical and mental struggles of the months before have finally taken their toll on her, burying her under what she has been dealing with. However when she is rescued by Elinor, she effectively rises from the ashes, having succeeded in her goal to secure the financial situation of young Merry Wickford and also in conquering one of her greatest phobias.Also stereotypical gender roles Anna's metamorphosis into a resilient, tenacious and optimistic individual is finalised with the naming of her adopted daughter Aisha, meaning life. She has persevered through the deaths of her two sons and learnt to love, care and live again, even through a "season of death". Omg so much better yayayayayaya weeee :): :)

Year of Wonders displays how dystopian the world can be in a time of crisis and how fear can affect the lives of so many. Pain and suffering are abundant in the novel, as evidenced by the reactions of villagers such as John Gordon in response to being isolated in a "prison" filled with rampant death. The novel shows how strong individuals can succumb to the power of grief and anguish, losing themselves in the pain and suffering they have endured. However, Anna's perseverance and growth as a person highlights that not everything in this pessimistic time period is negative, as she changes for the better, defying gender generalisations and prospering. It is clear, that whether the pestilence of the Plague results in positive or negative transformations, crisis can cause alterations in everyone. Excellent :)

Still a bit of retelling, you need to be meticulous in your punctuation because this could really fuck you over in assessments. Your anlaysis could also be more congruent with your paragraphs. At the moment (in the first two especially) There's a bit of "oh, what's this writing? oheeeyoooo there's some analysis! oh some more writing on something". You want it to be seamless. Your expression and flow can always be improved, as well as the sophistication of your language. Try to manipulate your sentence starters into making your look good (stop saying 'this')

Romaboy:
English SAC on Friday, haha. This is my piece that I'll hopefully memorise. It still needs a bit of tweaking. Would really appreciate it if someone could give me some tips and let me know what I should change, thanks :)

“If asked, I will tell her that it was never a conscious wish of mine to become a criminal. It was an apocalyptic choice.”
‘Amsterdam utilises grim scenarios in an attempt to illustrate the lack of control for the individual within his dystopian world.’ Do you agree?


Steven Amsterdam’s novel, ‘Things We Didn’t See Coming’ tells a pessimistic tale of humanity’s capacity for immorality and self-delusion in a speculative dystopian world. As Amsterdam exemplifies throughout the various vignettes, the characters are placed in grim scenarios where they have to step out of their moral compass just to survive. Amsterdam uses the protagonist’s actions to display a lack of control in the dystopian world. Similarly, Amsterdam employs the use of the grandparents to illustrate the severity of the situation as the grandparents are the only people that the protagonist encounters with ‘good’ morals. Furthermore, the relationship between Margo and the protagonist also depicts the lack of control the protagonist has as he is dependent on Margo. Likewise, Amsterdam uses Otis’ sanctuary to show how characters try and escape the dystopian world by creating a superficial coping mechanism. Hence, Amsterdam explores humanity’s lack of control within a possible dystopian world.

In tandem with this interpretation, Amsterdam demonstrates ones inability to define and abide by their own moral standards through the protagonist’s actions throughout the various vignettes. In the very first vignette, Otis instils a thought within the protagonist to avoid the norms of everyday life, to cope with the future of tomorrow, therefor setting the protagonist up for a life of a wanderer and criminal who ‘’feeds off the edges’’. It is this belief that life will be impermanent, unsafe and void of trust that then influences the protagonist to refrain from forming his own morals, which is shown when the protagonist is unable to give in to his own emotions about wanting to ‘marry Margo the traditional way’, due to the beliefs that Otis instilled. However, the protagonist in not completely amoral; as he still has a conscience which is show when the protagonist says he is ‘done with stealing’ It shows that the protagonist wants to have his own boundaries of right and wrong but is unable to due to his situation. Likewise, Otis also implies that the protagonist will have no control over his future when he says ‘’there’ll be breakdowns that can’t be fixed…more diseases that can’t be fixed… water will be as valuable as oil… that’s the future’’.  The protagonist is unable to abide by his own moral standards, which Amsterdam shows through the first person narration of the text ‘’It was an apocalyptic choice of mine’’. Hence, this demonstrates the lack of control the protagonist has due to the grim scenarios that he has experienced.

Amsterdam employs the dependent relationship between Margo and the protagonist to demonstrate the lack of control that those that exist in this flawed world have over their relationships, life and happiness. This is because relationships are based on need and security rather than trust and love. Margo is the protagonist’s chief source of temptation, dragging him back to the dishonest life he tried to leave behind. For example, the protagonist’s desire to become honest is short-lived. She soon causes him to ‘feel fallen’ from having lived a life of theft. Amsterdam employs an allusion to Macbeth as it not the protagonist’s choice to become a criminal, but a consequence; ‘things got worse when I met Margo’. Margo brings out the worst in the protagonist and stirs turmoil within his conscience which is shown when the protagonist says ‘’as long as I’ve known her, I’ve never known peace’’. Furthermore, the unions in the novel dehumanise the notion of marriage and love. Margo manipulates the protagonist’s idea to extend their union to include Juliet for mutual gains, ‘’ Margo exploited it to expand our world.’ Amsterdam uses the dependent relationship to show the lack of control the protagonist has in this dystopian world.

Amsterdam describes the grandparents as anachronistic in order to demonstrate the inability of those in this dystopian world to abide by their morals and virtues. Throughout the various vignettes, the grandparents are described as being anachronistic, hence when they become corrupt, Amsterdam is eluding to humanity have no control due to the grim scenarios that they are placed in. The grandparents are the only characters that the protagonist interacts with that have ‘good’ morals, hence, when they have no choice but to eat stolen food in the rural zone, ‘’they know it’s stolen’’, but they still eat it due to the pressures to survive in the dystopian. Likewise, the grandparents also steal a car, despite ‘’never having felt the thrill of larceny before’’ eventually becoming ‘’hooked’’. By Amsterdam representing the grandparents as, the last symbols of morality and by them needing to steal to survive, suggests that humanity has no control and that the ‘older order’ has collapsed. The grandparents are essentially forced to sacrifice the demands of their moral compass in order to become part of system they previously despised, which in turn show that the last symbols of morality are eternally lost. By the anachronistic grandparents becoming morally corrupt, Amsterdam suggests that humanity has no control in this dystopian world.

Amsterdam implies that Otis’ garden is a type of superficial coping mechanism and hence, demonstrates humanity’s lack of control over (……?). Otis is unable to cope with reality as he is aware of the imminent disasters and he knows that solving them is beyond humanity’s control. Hence, he resorts to building his ‘fort’ as a superficial coping mechanism. At the beginning, he says to ‘think defensively’ and in the last vignette, that sanctuary is described as a ‘fort. Otis’ attempt to live in a ‘fort’ is futile as there is no control or barrier against the environment. Amsterdam uses the presence of Liz and Jenna to foreshadow Otis’ fate. This is because even they were ‘’once rich’’ and now reduced to poverty by the disasters. People try to delude themselves about the undeniable truth and lying to themselves to cope.

Amsterdam explores humanity’s lack of control within a possible dystopian world. The protagonist had no control over his relationship with Margo and his own morals. The grandparents were unable to control the situation that they were placed in so they had resorted to becoming a part of the system they previously despised. Otis’ uses his sanctuary to try and escape the dystopian world. Amsterdam illustrates the lack of control that the characters have and how in turn, it leads continuous suffering.

brenden:
Is that your SAC prompt, Romaboy?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page