VCE Stuff > VCE English Work Submission and Marking

Compilation of Text Response Feedback

<< < (7/31) > >>

Romaboy:

--- Quote from: Brendinkles on February 26, 2013, 11:56:31 pm ---Is that your SAC prompt, Romaboy?

--- End quote ---

It's the question I chose for the SAC. We got to choose one out of three a week before the SAC.

brenden:
Sorry man, but I would feel uncomfortable giving feedback for an assessment task to be memorised. Anyone else is absolutely free to mark it if they please.

akeergar:
Hey guys,
If anyone could mark this for me. It's my first essay for the year so any feedback is welcome

'Somax is used in Ransom merely to provide entertainment and humour'. Do you agree?
 
David Malouf’s incandescent reworking of a classic Greek epic in his fable prose, Ransom, is evident in his addition of Somax’s character to guide Priam on his journey towards the Greek camp. Somax, playing a multimodal role in Ransom, is characterised by Malouf to symbolise the “simple folk” – pragmatic, content and humble. In this way, Somax’s tranquil character naturally casts some earthy humour to the often disturbing novel, yet there is an evident underlying complexity to his character that is initially dissembled by this common exterior. Malouf’s deliberate juxtaposing of Somax’s character to the “world of ceremony” that is central to Priam in his “realm of the royal”, is important in facilitating the pivotal development of Priam’s character throughout the novel.

Somax’s dominate voice as storyteller, companied with his strange traits, act as a source of entertainment, engaging some delight in the reader and thus briefly removing us from the otherwise depressing themes of Malouf’s prose. In Somax’s unexceptional introduction – a “man the whole town recognises as a simple carter” – the reader is given a small insight into his relationship with “the mule that has brought him” into Priam’s royal realm, Beauty. The unaccustomed love story between Somax and Beauty coaxes an immediate interest in the reading while the neglected Shock, Somax ‘other’ mule, receives our amused sympathy.  His “coaxing and sweet-talking” of Beauty and the “small secrets” they share add to the flashes of humour in Malouf prose, while softening our impression of Somax. As he and Priam make their way to the Greek camps, Somax tendency to let “his tongue run on, with no fear at all, it seemed, of being taken for a mere rattle or chatterer” becomes our second source of entertainment. The stories of his daughter-in-law and her pikelets, “or griddlecakes as some people call them”, are seemingly irrelevant tales that become a “pleasant way of filling the time” as they strangely capture our interest. Contrastingly, Somax recounting of his children, the “poor things” that “died too early”, strikes sympathy in the reader however also revealing the inner complexity of feeling unexpected from this deceptively simple character. 

As the complexity of Somax’s character is revealed through his act of storytelling, these tales also serve to remind Priam of the universal aspects of the human condition — loss, regret, grief —  as the two men, who are otherwise separated by the unbridgeable gulf of social rank, forge a common understanding. Somax’s story of the death of his children, especially the “older child, a boy” who would “take the milk” of his sister as she was “so sickly she couldn’t feed”, revealed the underlying grief and loss that grips Somax. As he recounts the fatal day his son died, “sweating”, even then, “just at the memory of it”, the reader begins to get a sense of the past pain and loss that has contributed to Somax’s unique view of the world, making him a much more well-rounded character. Juxtaposed with Somax evident grief, Priam’s detached relationship with his many son’s had left him with “much to take in”. He could share in no memory of the intimate moments Somax had with his children, all “he recalls is a series of small squalling bundles, each one presented to him like a bloodied human offering on the outstretched palms of an attendant”. The psychological abjection he had so obliviously been suffering became evident to Priam as he listened to “the lively manner, so full of emotion” in which Somax spoke of his children. With this Somax becomes the driving force that unintentionally facilitates Priam’s development as a character.

Somax embodies Priam’s vision of unadorned simplicity and authenticity and through him Priam is thus able to learn to appreciate the unadorned beauty of a world outside his “royal realm”.  The fertile natural world between encampment and city reflect Somax’s raw and earthy character. In this way, Malouf not only explores Somax inner-working but the contents of his realm. It is the natural world that Somax is custom with, yet juxtaposed with the private and enclosed spaces of bedchambers and inner courts that dominate Priam’s realm; it is a foreign land for Priam. For this reason, Malouf deliberately pays close attention to the settings that surround the men. Evident in the close descriptions of the ancient name for a river – Menderes, that the men cross, “the bone-white gravel of its bed”, the “glossy-leafed rosebay bushes” that grow in “flowering clumps on the island between” and all the other very detailed intimate workings of this river and its wildlife, invites the reader to begin to appreciate that “everything was just itself”, to be “bewildering”, while also foreshadowing Priam’s own journey in learning to appreciate the simplicities of life himself. In this same way, Somax amused familiarity to the “fingerlings” that “nosed in and nudged and nibbled at him” compared to Priam’s “uncertain” and anxious reaction, demonstrates Somax intrinsic connection with the natural world around him. His belief that we are “children of nature” and of “the earth” helps Priam, not necessarily have the same connection, but gain a sense of awareness of things, outside his realm, that he had once allowed to be so ignorantly foreign to him. 

Undoubtedly it is Somax vernacular character, the attributes of colloquial human nature, which lends itself to his general likability and humour, yet it would be remiss to neglect Malouf’s core intentions for creating his character. Instead, Malouf demonstrates the complexity of even the most simplistic beings. By juxtaposing the unembellished life of Somax to the “royal realm” of Priam, Malouf is able to demonstrate the similarities even the most socially unequal individuals can share. Moreover, by making this distinction apparent, Malouf extols the power of the common man in instigating change, ultimately demonstrating to the reader that the power to influence change in others does not lie exclusively in the glorified or the powerful individual, but that the power often lies in the unexceptional beings – the “simple folk”.

MonsieurHulot:
I wrote this in a little over an hour, so the word count is a bit low; but I would appreciate any feedback, specifically regarding any overall issues with my writing.

"The ignorance of the villagers is more powerful than Anna's growing knowledge." Discuss

In the mid-1660s, the burgeoning Age of Enlightenment was beginning to influence societal views of knowledge and personal liberty. Year of Wonders, a historical fiction novel by Geraldine Brooks, presents an exploration of the dichotomy between new, enlightened views and those that are detritus of the Dark Ages. The villagers of the town are ignorant, and this has an immediately noticeable, destructive effect. Anna's blossoming knowledge liberates her, but it cannot save the people she loves from the powerful destruction of the ignorant villagers.

The murder of Mem and Anys Gowdie is an exemplar of the blind anger brought about the villagers' benightedness. They know that the Gowdies are "well skilled in physic" and that they are "all the better off on account of it". Yet their incomprehension and mistrust of the Gowdies' skills makes them the targets of the villagers fury. The image of Mem lying on the earth as "dark water spewed from her mouth", and later, Anys "unrecognisable, purple and bloated" arrestingly illuminates the sheer destructive power of the villagers' ignorance.

Also portrayed in the scene of the Gowdies' lynching is Anna's impotence. She attempts to help Mem but is not match for the mob's rage. Her efforts to stop John Gordon are feeble compared to his power. She "knew [her] strength was insufficient to his frenzy". In this case, her encyclopaedic knowledge of the scripture is of no use, nor is her experience with birthing lambs. Her knowledge fails her, having no power against that of the villagers'; "distorted by drink and grief". Anna is later powerless again to prevent the murder of her closest friend, Elinor. Anna, along with the rest of the parishioners, is paralysed, unable to help as Aphra cuts Elinor's throat. Aphra, driven insane by loss, turns to dark sources for belief, and Anna is too afraid to confront her after seeing the rituals in her stepmother's house. This portrayal of the ineffectuality of Anna's knowledge highlights the fact that, more often than not throughout the novel, blind ignorance has greater power than Anna's enlightenment.

However, Anna's erudition and understanding of life does have powerful effects. Her gentle and compassionate delivery of Mary Daniel's baby is in stark contrast to the savage, unenlightened practices of the barber-surgeon that led to the death of Anna's mother and baby sister. Her first-hand knowledge of midwifery allows her to save potentially two lives in the Daniels household. This has a great effect on Mary, who otherwise would have had to suffer through childbirth alone.This proves that Anna can have a powerful effect, although not on the scale of that of the villagers'.

Anna's knowledge brings her freedom, and the means by which to save her life. Threatened by the Bradfords, she flees; first to Plymouth, then Venice and finally Oran. Here, her knowledge allows her to work as a midwife for Ahmed Bey, who is stymied by the strict gender roles of Muslim North Africa. Anna continues her study as Bey's wife. Her flourished knowledge allows her this escape, as she would not be as useful were she merely an ignorant villager.

The ignorance of the villagers has an effect to which they are blind. Their ignorance allows them to be influenced, even exploited. As soon as Michael Mompellion sees George Viccars' sores, he suspects the Plague. Using his contacts, he sends away for more information from the doctors at Cambridge. The villagers do not have this luxury. Mompellion withholds his more advanced knowledge, instead appealing to the villagers' faith to convince them to stay. Knowledge is power, and had the villagers had the same knowledge as Mompellion, their choice may have been very different. The educated Bradfords choose to flee, the ignorant have little choice but to stay.

Despite the disturbing destruction of arising from the villagers, their ignorance ultimately traps them in the "wide, green prison". Anna's knowledge is ineffectual against physical power, but she fortifies the town and helps deliver babies safely, perhaps saving many more lives than were taken by the hateful villagers. Brooks portrays the 1660s as a time of struggle, with enlightenment ultimately triumphing over blind ignorance.

Lolly:
So here's just one paragraph for Interpreter of Maladies text response ( the teacher doesn't have time to mark a whole essay....) Feedback definitely appreciated. It feels like an age since I last did text response and I'm quite out of practice.  Thanks. :) ( edit: This is now two paragraphs, because 400 words is too long for one paragraph :P )


“Lahiri demonstrates that even within marriage, individuals can experience isolation”

Throughout the anthology, Lahiri explores human alienation, revealing how personal vulnerability lies hidden at the core of our closest relationships. Her characters are often ensconced behind facades of stability and security in marriage, yet the narrative reveals the depth of isolation felt within these relationships.  This notion is prominent within the title story “ Interpreter of Maladies” through the depiction of Mrs Das, a woman who has experienced  her marriage in seclusion, “ left at home all day with the baby, surrounded by toys that made her trip when she walked”. Her life has been compromised by her relationship “as a result of spending all her time in college with Raj... she did not make many close friends”. Here, Lahiri reveals how relationships can paradoxically cause isolation.  This idea is reinforced by Mr Kapasi’s reflection that he and his wife,“…had little in common apart from three children and a decade of their lives”, this expressing how marriage is not always conducive to love or intimacy.  Mr Kapasi’s loneliness is evident as he attempts to make a connection with Mrs Das. He relates to her feelings of  being trapped in a relationship that has long since deteriorated. “ the signs…from his own marriage  were there – the bickering, the indifference, the protracted silence.” In this way, Lahiri illustrates the secluding effect of dysfunctional marriage.

 Furthermore,  Lahiri demonstrates how the protective forces of marriage are eroded by personal tragedy.Such estrangement  is explored through Shoba and Shukumar in “ A Temporary Matter”, as Shoba’s miscarriage causes both she and Shukumar to withdraw into their own worlds, rather than turning to each other for comfort. This is emphasised through Shukumar's observation "of how he and Shoba had become experts at avoiding each other”, portraying  Shoba and Shukumar’s relationship as a mere semblance what it was before. Their isolation is exacerbated by their lack of communication “ He thought of how long it had been since she…had smiled, or whispered his name”.  In this way, Lahiri communicates how marriage does not always grant immunity against personal desolation, instead highlighting how individuals feel constrained under the weight of its implications.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page