Close Analysis Practise/Workshopping Thread! - Exam 2013

[Lolly]

Emphasising the zzzz because lit essays on the whole can be very long hehe

LOL

[charmanderp]

LOL

They're so tiring to mark. I'm up at like 4am these days marking essays and the lit ones can be so verbose and frustrating haha.

That's another thing. Something worthwhile considering is making sure that you're not compromising the clarity of your ideas with obfuscatory, esoteric prose (see what I did there?). There's a temptation in Lit to use the biggest, most complex words you can find but simple language is always best.

[brenden]

I have to agree. Beauty comes from simplicity.
(Though, I might just be saying that because of my simple writing  )

[charmanderp]

I have to agree. Beauty comes from simplicity.
(Though, I might just be saying that because of my simple writing  )

I think unless you're F Scott Fitzgerald the best writing is always minimalistic.

[mishamigo]

At our school we have been given two exam texts only.
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? - Edward Albee [play]
Mrs Dalloway - Virginia Woolf [novel]

Is there anyone else doing either of these? It seems like our class is in the wilderness? hahahah

We're doing Dalloway!
And Antony & Cleopatra as our other exam piece.

[Lolly]

We're doing Dalloway!

Yay. Thoughts on the text?

[honey-corowa]

I think it would increase the formality of your work if you didn't add the parenthesis. I really enjoyed reading your analysis. You picked up on a lot of linguistics of your text which makes me wonder why you're not doing English Language, haha.

Thank you heaps! Now that you mention it that does seem silly of me...oops! Thanks

I'm still having trouble beginning my essays, is anyone else finding this problem? It's almost as if the rigidity of english has had a brainwashing effect on me...

Here are the beginning sentences of my next practice which I just started

The messily overlapping attitudes of both Indigenous culture and officious colonialism are implicitly revealed through the first scene of act one, as the imposing nature of the Europeans first becomes apparent. Continuously presented by Davis as being people of dependence on the natural world and upon themselves for creation and invention, the presence of a 'home-made [cricket] bat and ball' is particularly disturbing. Traditionally a characteristic telling of the resourcefulness so firmly embedded within Aboriginal society, it has become utilised for, while seemingly innocent, moulding symbols of white oppression.

^^^This is trashy and sloppy and I'm not really sure what to do about it, is it absolutely essential that I embed more quotes, even if it's just an opening paragraph and I intend to inject additional quotes later on in my essay?

[Holmes]

Read this and felt like posting something, so I just wrote out this paragraph of close analysis for 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?'.
It is basically an analysis formed from this quote I randomly found by flicking through the play: “It is said … and I have no reason to doubt it … that we make excellent fertilizer.”

Amid the disparaging remarks that George makes of Martha’s father, the use of ellipses in “It is said … and I have no reason to doubt it … that we make excellent fertilizer” allow for an interjection that portrays George’s typical self-confidence in the act he is carefully impressing upon Nick. Following this unsettling banter circling death is once again a return to the question he asked Nick only a few moments earlier – “How many kid’s do you have” – thus demonstrating the honed and subtle art of probing that he is applying against Nick. In the arena of his living room, the unacquainted Nick has no chance of surviving George’s brutal inflictions of rhetoric, as the almost brutal examination of his character yields a smaller-scale dissection of the defective virtues of ambition and amoral aspiration propounded by the American Dream.

The first line is very AN'ish, as it's kinda influenced by a similar bit of writing by EnvagelionZeta.

[charmanderp]

Amid the disparaging remarks that George makes of Martha’s father, the use of ellipses in “It is said … and I have no reason to doubt it … that we make excellent fertilizer” allow for an interjection that portrays George’s typical self-confidence in the act he is carefully impressing upon Nick. Following this unsettling banter circling death is once again a return to the question he asked Nick only a few moments earlier – “How many kid’s do you have” – thus demonstrating the honed and subtle art of probing that he is applying against Nick. In the arena of his living room, the unacquainted Nick has no chance of surviving George’s brutal inflictions of rhetoric, as the almost brutal examination of his character yields a smaller-scale dissection of the defective virtues of ambition and amoral aspiration propounded by the American Dream.

In terms of construction I can't fault this - superb analysis of linguistic features, and I like how you've synthesised it at the end by assessing what the effect of the passage is.

My main criticism would be that it's rather verbose and ornate. Maybe see if you can simplify the language a bit, and shorten some of your sentences?

[Holmes]

My main criticism would be that it's rather verbose and ornate. Maybe see if you can simplify the language a bit, and shorten some of your sentences?

I felt like doing another one, so I picked a random quote and did it again. I tried to do what you said, but I was unable to quite achieve it with any success. I guess it's just how I write? That said, this did take far longer to write - about 15 mins, so obviously my pace has to be faster. Anyway, here it is.

NICK [shaking within]: No … no. Not really. But I’ll be it, mister …. I’ll show you something come to life you’ll wish you hadn’t set up.

The theatrical stage directions of a “shaking within” convey to the audience the emotional dregs of a barely cohesive character as Nick struggles to rebound from a charged verbal assault that has already incapacitated his wife. The typical patterns of speech are again repeated in “No … no” and “mister …. I’ll show you” with the ellipses reinforcing the notion that the entire play is a connected and barbaric act of slow upstaging. Nick’s parting words confirm the upstaging declension of “good, better, bested” that all the characters inevitably climb, as the clash between his measured and mindlessly immoral objectivity and George’s appreciation of a “natural disorder” bring out a psychological struggle for the two to barge through. Ultimately, Nick is unable to “be it”, for he is rigidly stuck in his amoral representation of defective virtues, however he is able to bring an element of destruction into the lives of his hosts, thereby revealing the inevitable societal turmoil that spontaneously arises when Nick’s morally unguided ambition meets with the stagnant virtue that George presents.

[charmanderp]

. I tried to do what you said, but I was unable to quite achieve it with any success. I guess it's just how I write?

I used to be in the same boat, expect probably even worse; my sentences were ridiculously convolute. Cleaning it up went a long way towards improving the marks I got for Lit - I'd repeatedly get frustrated at essays I'd hand in thinking I'd done brilliantly in terms of complexity of analysis, which my teacher would commend, but also say the language itself made the paper too difficult to understand and so she'd fairly mark me down.

Remember that examiners mark hundreds of essays and only spend a couple of minutes on each one, when they're weary eyed at 4am and on their 7th cup of coffee and 3rd bottle of red wine. They don't want to have to read any sentences more than once, let alone paragraphs, to obtain their meaning!

NICK [shaking within]: No … no. Not really. But I’ll be it, mister …. I’ll show you something come to life you’ll wish you hadn’t set up.

The theatrical stage directions of a “shaking within” convey to the audience the emotional dregs of a barely cohesive character as Nick struggles to rebound from a charged verbal assault that has already incapacitated his wife. The typical patterns of speech are again repeated in “No … no” and “mister …. I’ll show you” with the ellipses reinforcing the notion that the entire play is a connected and barbaric act of slow upstaging. Nick’s parting words confirm the upstaging declension of “good, better, bested” that all the characters inevitably climb, as the clash between his measured and mindlessly immoral objectivity and George’s appreciation of a “natural disorder” bring out a psychological struggle for the two to barge through. Ultimately, Nick is unable to “be it”, for he is rigidly stuck in his amoral representation of defective virtues, however he is able to bring an element of destruction into the lives of his hosts, thereby revealing the inevitable societal turmoil that spontaneously arises when Nick’s morally unguided ambition meets with the stagnant virtue that George presents.

This is much better, I think. With regards to plays, the dramatic presentation of character is a key feature, which you've analysed very well here done well. I like to see establishment of character in the opening lines of the paragraphs though - you've nicely lead into your passage analysis by foregrounding the context of the character.

With regards to timing issues the key is to just write - as my Lit teacher said, write yourself out. My writing speed by the time of the exam was about 25-30 words a minute but I was probably tracking at 15 for most of the year. Just a matter of practise and knowing the task inside out! Using simpler language helps as well, in terms of the flow of your ideas onto the page.

[Holmes]

With regards to plays, the dramatic presentation of character is a key feature, which you've analysed very well here done well. I like to see establishment of character in the opening lines of the paragraphs though - you've nicely lead into your passage analysis by foregrounding the context of the character.

I was just writing a flyaway semi-paragraph of analysis, I wasn't trying to present an intro or anything. In terms of the wording, do you think it sounds better if I make a small alteration such as this so that it's a bit easier to read and yet maintains its style:

Ultimately, Nick is unable to “be it”, for he is not a dynamic character but rather one who can only play out a fixed representation of ambition's defective virtues. However, what Nick is able to do is impart an element of destruction into the lives of George and Martha, and thereby gradually showcase the turmoil that arises when his morally unguided ambition is met with the stagnant virtues of George.

[charmanderp]

I was just writing a flyaway semi-paragraph of analysis, I wasn't trying to present an intro or anything.

Yes I know - what I said is that you've introduced the body of the paragraph itself well.

Ultimately, Nick is unable to “be it”, for he is not a dynamic character but rather one who can only play out a fixed representation of ambition's defective virtues. However, what Nick is able to do is impart an element of destruction into the lives of George and Martha, and thereby gradually showcase the turmoil that arises when his morally unguided ambition is met with the stagnant virtues of George.

And yeah this is much, much cleaner. Great work!

[Holmes]

In my lit trial a few days ago, I wrote on passages from T.S. Eliot's poetry. And Eliot is so strange, I found that I couldn't really analyse the language properly, because, well, he writes like he's high or something. For instance, with these few lines from Portrait of a Lady (one of the passages), I couldn't really find anything tangible to rinse out of the poetry, and link to an interpretation.

And I must borrow every changing shape   
To find expression … dance, dance          
Like a dancing bear,   
Cry like a parrot, chatter like an ape.   
Let us take the air, in a tobacco trance—   
Well! and what if she should die some afternoon,   
Afternoon grey and smoky, evening yellow and rose;

WAT? I find it so strange to analyse these lines in isolation, as I have done in the posts above for my other text. Any help in how to apply some analysis to this?

[brenden]

You could analyse the surrealism created by strange things like "dancing bear". When you're reading Eliot, stop looking for anything literal and start feeling the poem. Analyse the feelings.

Take "Cry like a parrot, chatter like an ape (unreal). / Let us take the air, in a tobacco trance - (note the semi-irony in taking /air/ in a /tobacco/ trance)... and look at the meaning of trance - some sort of detachment for reality, and then 'cry like a parrot, chatter like an ape' can start to make a bit of sense. Not really in a literal way, but you can feel it. I hope you know what I mean.  So you coul analyse things that create surrealism, take away reality, things that are illusive, and talk about what effect the illusiveness/surrealism has for the poem, how it might confuse the reader or whatever else.

*Should note, I don't really know what I'm talking about*

Slightly off-topic, I love the confusion of Eliot. It's a nice break. Just stop giving a fuck about the poem and feel the words and it's great.

Edit: fun piece of information, when poets put together words that are like "wtf does that mean?" but it's still grammatical, it's called a selection-violation.

eg. He ate a slice of boredom.
The pianist then played a red hat topped with geraniums and wisdom.