Criteria for text response

[rawrness]

Understanding of ways in which the text is open to different interpretations by different readers.

I'm not really sure how this can be Incorporated in a text response. Can someone please show an example because i don't really understand what should be done.

[dilks]

Here is an example of this kind of thing. Note that this is only an example, you don't necessarily have to go as far as this in order to satisfy this criterion.

---

From the outset of the play Richard makes it explicitly clear what his intentions are:

   Since I cannot prove a lover,
   And entertain these fair-well spoken days.
   I am determined to prove a villain,
   And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

Richard’s use of the word ‘determined’ here is semantically multifaceted, more-so than even he suspects. The first and most obvious meaning is that it is Richard’s ambition to be so evil that he should be considered a villain; the second meaning, which relates to the immediate context in which it is stated, is that because of his grotesque physical deformities Richard is a social outcast in a society characterised by peace and prosperity, the only delight he might have had in such a time were if he were to prove a lover, an ambition which is frustrated at every turn by his undisguisable ugliness, he might “want love’s majesty to strut before an ambling nymph” but he cannot have it, and since this is the case the logical consequence is his moral choice of evil.

However there are some more ironic ways which we could construe ‘determined’, meanings which are at Richard’s expense. Richard’s actions could potentially be predetermined, a conclusion which seems at odds with his immoral choice to pursue a career in evil, but which will make sense in retrospect after some consideration of the theoretical background pertaining to the historical and theological aspects of the play.

---

So in this extract, I have briefly discussed other possible interpretations of the passage, before I discussed my own personal interpretation of the passage. In essence, if a quotation can be interpreted in multiple ways, suggesting that there are other plausible interpretations and saying what these are, while still asserting the validity of your own interpretation should be sufficient to satisfy this criterion.

[rawrness]

Here is an example of this kind of thing. Note that this is only an example, you don't necessarily have to go as far as this in order to satisfy this criterion.

---

From the outset of the play Richard makes it explicitly clear what his intentions are:

   Since I cannot prove a lover,
   And entertain these fair-well spoken days.
   I am determined to prove a villain,
   And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

Richard’s use of the word ‘determined’ here is semantically multifaceted, more-so than even he suspects. The first and most obvious meaning is that it is Richard’s ambition to be so evil that he should be considered a villain; the second meaning, which relates to the immediate context in which it is stated, is that because of his grotesque physical deformities Richard is a social outcast in a society characterised by peace and prosperity, the only delight he might have had in such a time were if he were to prove a lover, an ambition which is frustrated at every turn by his undisguisable ugliness, he might “want love’s majesty to strut before an ambling nymph” but he cannot have it, and since this is the case the logical consequence is his moral choice of evil.

However there are some more ironic ways which we could construe ‘determined’, meanings which are at Richard’s expense. Richard’s actions could potentially be predetermined, a conclusion which seems at odds with his immoral choice to pursue a career in evil, but which will make sense in retrospect after some consideration of the theoretical background pertaining to the historical and theological aspects of the play.

---

So in this extract, I have briefly discussed other possible interpretations of the passage, before I discussed my own personal interpretation of the passage. In essence, if a quotation can be interpreted in multiple ways, suggesting that there are other plausible interpretations and saying what these are, while still asserting the validity of your own interpretation should be sufficient to satisfy this criterion.

Thank-you ^^