English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only)

[brenden]

If you'd like your essay marked, you won't be able to post it until you make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to copy and paste your essay and post it up here for us to mark!

Hey everyone!! Welcome to the English Advanced Module Marking Thread. This thread is here for you to get feedback on your Advanced module essays from a Band 6 student. This resource exists to help you guys make huge improvements on your essay writing... Too often, teachers just write "good" or "needs explaining" or "expand". SUPER. FRUSTRATING. This is a place to properly improve

Before posting, please read the essay marking rules/rationale here.

Post away, and happy studies!! 

[EarthSci34]

Ned Nerb!
 Attached below is a copy of my Advanced English essay- details are specified within the document.

Thank you so much and this is a very big help!!!!

[brenden]

Acting as a parallel to the mass hysteria and socio-political anxieties that reverberated through the Salem Witch Hunts of Massachusetts in 1692, Arthur Miller and his sustained political allegory The Crucible (1951) sought to encapsulate the failure of American bureaucratic systems to facilitate the truth within a demoralised society and subsequently manipulated this truth to maintain power and influence.

So just a few things to note here in terms of language.

Firstly, and most simply, is “sought to encapsulate”. – Try not to talk about the text in the past tense. You’ll notice that as you avoid this, your writing begins to become punchier. I.e, “The Crucible encapsulates the failure of…” is an improvement on what’s there at the moment.

The second and third thing is sort of intertwined but worth noting separately for your consideration. The sentence is far, far too long, and it is also slightly convoluted because of all the “big” words. I mean, count the syllables in that sentence - huge quantities! I mean, the words you’re using are really nice and a reader can see you know what you’re saying, but are your choices as an author achieving the maximum impact for the reader? At the moment, I don’t believe so – because there are so many ‘nice’ words that they detract from each other… if you had less ‘nice’ words, you’d give the remaining ‘nice’ words more time to shine if that makes sense.

As for the length  - yep, too long. A good rule of thumb is that a sentence shouldn’t exceed 40 words unless you’re supremely confident that it must exceed that amount in order for the sentence to be maximally valuable. It’s good to have a punchy introduction, but 60 words in one sentence for the whole thing? It would be better to spend more words on using more sentences and breaking up the material for your reader.

As far as actual clarity goes: I’m not sure it’s 100% clear what you’re saying with reference to America. Whilst I haven’t read the entire essay yet, I know you discuss both McCarthyism and Islamaphobia. Which, then, demoralised society are you referencing? I’d perhaps slow down the introduction and be slightly more specific so you can later explain your choices more effectively.
 

Miller’s own involvement with the ‘Red Scare’ by Senator McCarthy in the 1950s led to the creation of ‘The Crucible’ and acted as a metacommentary on the social upheaval and abandonment of well-established values at the time. On the note of "tense" as I mentioned before... I would say, "led to the creation" (past tense, which is fine, because you're making historical claims), but then I would say..."'The Crucible', which acts as a metacommentary" -- also, you don't need the inverted commas around "The Crucible", as it has been written in italics (and has previously been written in italics and without the italics - important to keep consistency)The ‘Red Scare’ acted as a medium for the protection of individuals and the retaliation of long seated grudges towards other members of the community. The Salem Witch Hunts of 1692 and McCarthyism of 1950’s United States are remarkably similar by the lack of genuine justice served in both instances and accentuate the power dynamics evident within society.

So, I have highlighted in red the things I believe require some 'extrapoloation'. The 'Red Scare' sentence seems too foggy. Like in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, when Harry loks through the pensieve to see Slughorn's memory of Voldemort, but because Slughorn had try to destroy the memory it looks 'foggy', even though Harry knows there's something really good behind the fog. That's what the sentence is like -- what do you mean "medium for the protection of individuals?", what do you mean about retaliation for long-seated grudges? You don't necessarily need more words in this sentence - rather, you need different words that achieve your aims more effectively. You're right (as you know) that McCarthyism and the SWHunts are very similar, but I don't think you precisely accentuate why their are similar in a wholesome, non-generalised sense. That brings me to 'power dynamics'. I mean, I know this section will be important to when you being to talk about your design, because these are the things -- the power dynamics, the bureaucracy -- that are really relevant. Because of that, you want to make sure these are the things that are really accurately delivered in your essay! In essence, I think you assume too much of the reader in this paragraph, and you need to give them just a little more. 

Drawing upon a multiplicity of discourses and inference to the multifaceted nature of politics --- It makes grammatical sense, but again, sentences like this feel overwhelming to the reader. I mean, it's still a really good sentence, I see what you're saying, but it just takes effort to read, which is normally a sign that revision would be beneficial. I mean, is talking about 'inference' completely necessary in order for you to convey the requisite meaning? (I am, of course, being absurdly nitpicky), I have chosen to represent the First Scene as you are capitalising, it may have been more appropriate to say "I have chosen to represent Scene One" of ‘The Crucible’ Again, just use italics. (Or underlining when handwriting). and translating it to Grammar needs revision. Send me a personal message if you don't see the grammatical mistake, but I think you'll notice it after your read it again.a 21st Century context through the vilification of Muslims preceding the events of the 9/11 bombings I think a stronger case could be made for the vilifcation of Muslims after the 9/11 bombing, but this is a very clear, good idea. It hits the second dot point of the criteria quite well (as I can only assume you will keep discussing this) .  Change of attitudes towards Muslims after these attacks became evident slightly messy clause that could be made punchier -- "were" would be a direct replacement for "became", but you could say that "These attacks provoked a radical attitudinal shift regarding the Muslim community" or something along those lines. , perpetuating fear and prejudice towards a religious group with differences to Western ideologies. Fuelled by similar anxieties that 1692 inhabitants of Salem had towards witchcraft and the outcasts of society that blew out of proportion, recent events such as the War on Terror sought to demonise Muslims within their familiar environment. These mirror the events of the Witch Trials and McCarthyism in which political figures, such as Judge Danforth and Abigail in The Crucible and Senator McCarthy in the ‘Red Scare’, are undeniably to blame for the demise of innocent people. Congruently, Anti-Terrorism laws were established throughout the Western world that allowed for the detainment and deportment of immigrants suspected of terrorism and prompted invasions of privacy and surveillance of individuals dueto heightened paranoia of Islamic terrorist attacks. Politicians at the time, such as President Bush, were also responsible for the needless suffering that individuals had due to simply being Muslim.Cool - very clear idea and comparison.
 
The recent rendition of The Crucible preformed at Bella Vista Farms was substantial for my choice of creative elements incorporated within my modern interpretation. Although relatively simplethis sounds like an insult (and in general, evaluative phrases/offering your opinion on quality of some thing or another isn't particularly useful or necessary), the stage director was successful in the manipulation of lighting and sounds in the first scene that was notable for its effect to foreshadow the destructive events to come. Darkness was prominent in first scene, aside from the focus on Betty and Reverend Parris, emphasising the absence of reason and light that would’vecontraction averted the death of innocents. "The director also integrated" Confronting, foreboding sounds such as harsh wind was also integrated within the set- projecting the anxiety of Reverend Parris and portraying the exacting judgements to be set later on within the play. The small, constricted room of Betty was also of particular interest to me, as it may also be symbolic of the narrow-mindedness that the citizens of Salem convey at the height of the trial’s proceedings. Quintessentially, the set, lighting and sounds very clearly evoke this downward progression in order to mirror the characters’ descent into madness.

Extending that notion into a 21st century context, the first scene of my rendition is an establishing shot of the American Flag with the Twin-Towers burning vigorously from the terrorist attacks. Good first sentence and transition from discussing the play you saw, to beginning to discuss how it impacted your choices (requisite point 2 for your reflection).This presents to the responder a provoking image of violence and destruction. Following that, a tracking shot of the Twin-Towers is presented to the viewer, emphasising the sense of despair that is seen in the first shot. Subsequently, the focus then changes to a television screen, with images of the Twin-Towers’ destruction and, underneath, in red capital and threatening letters ‘AL-QUEADA TERRORISTS IN AN ACT OF WAR’. This reinforces the involvement of an Islamic terrorist organisation in the demise of many Americans.  A dolly-shot follows this confronting shot- showing a hospital waiting room surrounded by darkness apart from the light emanating from the television set. The light of the television emphasises the confused and worried look of a man in the waiting room. The pervasive presence of the television mimics the lack of light within the original play- where the truth is constricted to individual and often confusing sources awesome. This asserts the all-encompassing power of the media, which is an extension of politics, that is able to alter public interpretations of the political act of war. In the following scene, a nurse directs the man to a dying woman, who is heavily injured from the attacks, which reiterates the devastating effects of the bombing to the wider audience. The focus is then changed to a newspaper, where the perpetuation of hatred towards the Muslims is substantiated to pictures of public protests about Islam- foreshadowing the incoming injustices to proceed from bigotry and fanaticism. Your adaption sounds so cool lol. So, I'm looking at the... "In your reflection you should consider" section of your criteria, which is what you're (presumably) aiming to satisfy in this paragraph and the past one. If that is indeed the case, then I would perhaps more directly make comparisons between your discussion of your own interpretation and how it has been impacted by your viewing of the play etc. I.e, something similar to........ " I have manipulated x stagecraft in y way, which is at least partially as a result of Director Y's decision to X in the Z production of the play". I feel like this would more conclusively hit the criteria (the first dot point - hitting all areas of the assessment, particularly as this is your last paragraph, I feel it would be particularly beneficial to really blatantly demonstrate how well you're hitting the criteria with those comparisons. Be like a peacock).

Conclusively Odd word choice, perhaps a mistake? "Conclusively" isn't synonymous with "in conclusion". I would have gone with "Ultimately" rather than "conclusively"., my adaption of ‘The Crucible’ in a 21st century context effectively uses a range of images and camera techniques to highlight political manipulation of truth in a wider society Great sentence!! See, "political manipulation of truth in a wider society" has some of those "bigger/fancier" words - but all of them shine! Rather than something like " political manipulation of the heteronormative and presumptious nature inherent to the bourgeois and their assumptions about truth in a wider society". That's what I mean. The second one is like "woah. too much", but the first one shines like a diamond. Hopefully that conclusively illustrates my aforementioned issues with your language choices. . This allows American politicians to extirpateextirpate might be an extremely strong word? demonise, yes. but completel eradicate seems like an overreach. Islam and ‘spread democracy’ throughout the world. The evident demonization of Muslims allows American politicians a sustained reason for a global military agenda, and subsequently increases its influence internationally. Similar to Danforth’s repressive exploitation of a theocratic government where religious ideology is inflexibly applied, America’s reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attacks castigates Muslims, both innocent and otherwise, and underhandedly causes grief and undermines the true notion of ‘justice’.


Cool. Clear concepts. Quite well written. Like, really well written (but imperfect). Basically all of my feedback is contained within, let me know if you have any other questions .

If anyone else wants their essay marked, just sign up here!

[ch2831]

Thanks so much for your help!

[brenden]

Hey Brenden,
I was wondering if you'd just be able to take a look at my introduction and first paragraph, and give me some feedback on the clarity of the arguments introduced, and their relevance to the marking criteria.  If possible it would be great to make my argument more concise due to the 1000 word limit, but any feedback would be useful - go your hardest!
For the top band:
• Explores how Brave New World and a related text represent people and politics in unique and evocative ways
• Explores skilfully the relationship between representation and meaning
• Composes a skilful personal response using language appropriate to audience, purpose and form
 

Thanks!

Hey ameliagrace! Wow, you've done an awesome job! Thanks for providing the criteria, that was super convenient. I'm going to slaughter this, but don't be intimidated by all the feeedback. There's not that much to change, I'm just trying to explain to you why I'm giving points of feedback, which is  why there's so much.

And by the way, if anyone else wants their essay marked, you won't be able to post it until you make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to copy and paste your essay and post it up here for me to mark!
 


All representations of an apparent truth are subject to manipulation by the perspective’s of those responsible for its production. Okay. Cool. I like this as an opening sentence because it’s interesting. Many people will just jump right into talking about BNW; however, this sentence does an awesome job of a) showing that you will hit the criteria, and b) not boring your assessor to death. So, I like the aim of the sentence, but I take slight objection to its execution... It’s just a bit “twisty-turny” on a grammatical level, so I feel like it’s not as clear and as punchy as it could be. For example, the way I interpret the meaning within this sentence is, “There are inaccuracies in all representations of truth because people only represent manipulated versions of the truth.” Now, I know the sentence I just gave is very ugly. However, it’s BLUNT. It’s blunt af. And because it’s blunt, after reading the sentence just once, you know what the writer is trying to say. However, I could do this with your sentence, because the information I required as a reader was not given to me in the correct order. Check the end of your sentence – “the perspective of those responsible for its production”. Here, you tell me WHOSE perspective you’re talking about LAST. Also, notice that you say “manipulation by the perspectives”… however, it’s not necessarily the perspectives doing the manipulating. It’s the people WITH the perspectives doing the manipulating. Also,  “representations… subject to manipulation…” – why not just say “are manipulated”? So basically, there needs to be a bit more grammatical precision in this first sentence in order for me to go “WOW”. The meaning is brilliant, but I need the meaning to be both brilliant and immediately obvious. I might revise this sentence to something like, “Truth is often presented categorically; however, it seems that the truth can be represented in sometimes contradictory ways, depending on from whose perspective the truth was told”. – obviously, this sentence is also a little bit twisty-turny, but I think it’s much clearer to the reader, even though it might lack the ‘zazz’ that your sentence was going for. This notion, explored by de Beauvior, is clearly evident in the novel Brave New World (1932), written by Aldous Huxley, and political documentary Bowling for Columbine (2002), produced by Michael Moore, where personal political perspectives are used to explore unique and evocative interpretations pertaining to political situations of their time. Cool. The second half of this sentence (where you aren’t just introducing authors blablabla) is good. Obviously directly hits the criteria through using the same keywords (evocative and unique), which I don’t mind at all. I appreciate the clarity. This sentence is fine but could be improved by having punchier expression. “…is clearly evident in the novel BNW”, could be something like “BNW exemplifies this notion”. Notice how much punchier ‘BNW exemplifies this notion’ sounds. (Obviously, that would change the rest of your sentence, so let’s see how we could change things around). “Written by Aldous Huxley” could definitely be punchier as well. So… perhaps something like… “Both Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) and Michael Moore’s political documentary Bowling for Columbine (2002) exemplify this notion, utilizing their own political perspectives to create unique and evocative interpretations of their time’s political situation”. Now, I know this leaves out de Beauvoir. Maybe she comes in through a second sentence, or maybe my revise sentence can be further revised. Basically, what I’m trying to show you is how my revised sentence seems more ‘fluent’ because it removes the ‘clunk’ from yours, but still keeps that awesome meaning in the second half of the sentence. How have I done this? Firstly, I’ve favoured ‘es’ over ‘ed’. So, the difference between “explored” and “explores”. Keep this tip in mind, because it’s very easy to use the active version of the word instead. I’ve also obviously written possession into the name of the author, rather than saying ‘written by’ or ‘produced by’. I like this a lot better because it sounds punchier, but sometimes you’ll want to say “produced by” for a specific purpose, so that’s definitely an option as well. Also notice that I’ve used “exemplify…, utilizing”. This is a common pattern. Just use a verb, (exemplify), then follow it up with a comma and another verb  with ‘ing’ on the end – “utilizing”. This has the same ‘punchy’ feel as just writing “-es” over “-ed”. IN SUMMARY: great sentence, but you can use some easy tips to clean up the expression and make it really impressive. In both texts, this notion can be explored on two levels - explicitly within the text’s plot and implicitly within the construction of the text itself. Cool! I love the distinction that you’ve made and the idea in general. Notice that the tip I just spoke about can be applied again here, and be “Both texts explore this notion in two ways: explicitly within the text’s plot, and implicitly within the construction of the text itself”.  All I’ve done is tried to find a way to write “explore” instead of “explored”, and it forced me to make the sentence sound a bit nicer.  Through the medium of production, textual form, perspective and use of language I would put a comma here for the sake of clarity the composers reveal their political motivations, which impact the representation of the subject and consequently influence the way in which the audience perceives meaning. This is an interesting sentence, because you’re writing about the criteria, and generally writing about the task – talking about representation and so on – but you don’t actually offer any information about what their political motivations might be, or how the representation of the subject is actually impacted… So, I think this sentence needs a little bit more detail (but not necessarily that many more words). – change it around a little bit to “give” the reader a bit more, which will show that you’re hitting the criteria more effectively than just writing a ‘generalist’ sentence as you have done.  Within the plot, Moore and Huxley also address the manipulation of truth by powerful political bodies GOOD. BOOM. That’s the specificity I was talking about. Powerful political bodies. Excellent! One slight hiccup, notie that you’ve said “Within the plot”, which refers to one plot, but then you’ve mentioned two creators. You’d need to say “Within their respective plots, ….”.   They emphasise This is awesome. Notice that “they emphasise” is much better than “they emphasized” that a particular representation does not always equate with the absolute truth good , and the impact that a false perception of truth has on the freedom of individuals and society within the text because you’re saying that they emphasise two things, it’s almost lost in the second half of the sentence what they’re emphasizing about freedom of individuals. However, I get the idea, and it’s a good one. I like it, it’s clear, and it hits the criteria.  Both composers cleverly criticise representations of people and politics by establishing the extent to which truth can be manipulated, and the effect of this on individuals and society.

Cool! Good wrap up sentence, leaves your contention very clear.
I know I just wrote some massive slab of text for a few sentences there, so just to be clear, my main point of feedback is:
Your writing could be more clear, and the meaning of your words more apparent, if you made your expression “punchier” through making your grammar more active. Improving this expression would not only improve your writing, but improve the perception of the examiner. Suddenly, your ideas will look better, and your analysis will look stronger – even if they’re the same as always. It’s about representing your skill in a certain way . You want to represent yourself like you’re a genius, so you should writing confidently and with ‘punch’.

In terms of what you wanted to know – your ideas are clear, and they’re good! They’d come out even better with just a few grammar changes   


Moore’s political documentary successfully employs a post modern form to persuade the audience of his idea of the truth, his personal belief in the need for a gun law reform in America Notice that you've said "his idea of the truth, his personal belief...". Grammatically, this doesn't check out. As in, sticking that comma there and then saying "his personal..." lacks a bit of sophistication. You write it because those two this are so closely related in your brain, so you just separate it with a comma, but the process of codifying your thought and turning it into language means you can't use a comma that way. What you need is something like "...his idea of the truth: that gun law reform in America is vital/necessary/blablabla". Otherwise, I love that you've brought postmodernism into your discussion of truth - good first sentence!.  Exploring the possible causes for the Columbine High School Massacre, Moore focuses  YES! This is exactly the type of grammar I want you to have. "Exploring... Moore focuses" -- notice how this is the mirrored version that I told you to use earlier - "Emphasises, utilising". Good! This is what I want you to keep doing! on the nature of violence and use of guns within America culture.  His post modern approach to film making, as well as his prominence in pop-culture as a political narrator, establishes an authentic and reliable perspective.  Furthermore, by using a form of digital media which is easily accessible to a modern audience, Moore is able to relate to and fabricate trust within the audience LOVING what you have to say so far.  You could revise it so it was more concise, because it's almost a bit 'waffly', but otherwise, we're on a good path. After this little bit of 'waffle', I'm expecting you to launch into some deep analysis now that you've set up the paragraph. Also, notice that 'fabricate trust' doesn't make sense, even though I REALLY SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT. I know what you mean, and I like it... but how does one "fabricate" trust? You fabricate a story by lying. But you can't fabricate trust. You can only manipulate people into trusting you on grounds that might not necessarily warrant trust, but that's not the same as fabricating. I know what you mean though, and I like it. You'll just have to describe it better..  The extent to which this is evident back to the clunky expression. Make it punchier!is seen in a montage of various US involvement in various foreign politics, with Moore’s voice over narration providing statistics I would describe this as a "rhythmically stuttered presentation of historical facts", which is very specific, but the specificity helps to elucidate what Moore is doing. Also, your quote isn't as well integrated into the sentence as it could be. You just say "statistics" and follow it with the quote, however, you'd want to say "statistics, such as '...' " --- you want your questions to be completely embedded into the grammar of your sentence ‘1980s: U.S trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists.  CIA gives them $3 billion’ followed bySee, this is good. This embeds the quote into your sentence's grammar ‘Sept. 11, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3000 people.’  The song ‘Wonderful World’ is played over the top of the narration, and as the song reaches its climactic ending, footage of the second plane to hit the World Trade centre is introduced, with the non-diegetic sound fading out to hear the screams of witnesses as the screen dissolves to black. AWESOME The highly emotive sequence is used to evoke a personal response within the audience, who Moore is able to manipulate to align with his beliefs of the need to reconsider the American Government’s political stance on gun laws and violence. Cool. Cool. Mmk. Very cool. So. What you've done is, you've provided a very descriptive (and accurate) account of what happened in the movie - which is indeed very emotive! - and then you've said "the emotion within this sequence does x". What you're missing is a detailed description of HOW Moore creates the emotion. Because this would be truly hitting the criteria of exploring how the related text represents people and politics in an evocative way. I know it might be confusing to you, "what do you mean, explain how?! How can you explain it when it's about f**king 9/11?! OF COURSE IT'S EVOCATIVE".

But think about it. What a Wonderful World. Why is it so evocative to play that song over footage of 9/11? HOW does that work?  It's not enough just to put it there, let the reader go 'woah' and then continue to say that Moore manipulates audience belief.

The reason that this so evocative is because of the contrast between the meaning of 'what a wonderful world' and the historical meaning of 9/11. 9/11 is obviously very far from wonderful, but what a wonderful world is supposed to be a celebration of the good things in life. Right? So why is he playing celebratory music over horrible footage?  The juxtaposition of these two dichotomous feelings creates - or EVOKES - a haunting effect in the viewer.The non-diegetic sound fades out to overwhelm the viewer and allow them to be completetly swallowed by the screams that they can hear.  Do you see how specific I'm being? I'm being very precise by honing in on the things that seem like they're even too small to explain. THAT's some beast-mode analysis.

Basically, what I'd want you to do to hit the first two criteria points even more effectively is to introduce the analysis earlier in your paragraph and then expand on the analysis you've already written. By expand - i mean write abotu the stuff that I just sort of wrote about - truly explain how he evokes emotion on such a fundamental level. Explain WHY putting 'wonderful world' over 9/11 is so powerful. Spend a bit of time on that, and then link it back to representation and truth -- how has he used such powerful emotion to shift around people's beliefs about the 'truth' of gun laws?

IN SUMMARY:

Love your analysis - it's clear, perceptive, and hits the criteria. But I would want analysis introduced SOONER so you can force the reader to spend more time reading your brilliant analysis. Know what I mean? When you've got something good, why only talk about it at the end of the paragraph? When you've got something good, you want ot SHOW IT OFF! Write about it sooner, expand on it, then wrap it up at the end. Great job!


Woo! Awesome. Great job. Your ideas are clear, however, they could be more clear through introducing punchier language, as you've done at times throughout the essay, but have also ignored at some key moments.

Your analysis is good, but it's interesting enough to leave me wanting more - I want to read more of your great analysis earlier in the paragraph, which would let your argument and idea shine through much more effectively.

So, a good effort ameliagrace, but you can definitely do better! Please let me know if you have any questions or need further assistance


If anyone else wants their essay marked, you won't be able to post it until you make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to copy and paste your essay and post it up here for me to mark!

[heids]

^ Not bad, not bad, for a guy.



... no honestly, everyone should be getting on to this!  This is the best feedback you'll ever ever get, don't be shy, share it with your friends and post away

[brenden]

If you'd like your essay marked, you won't be able to post it until you make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to copy and paste your essay and post it up here for me to mark!

Hi,
I've attached my 4 body paragraphs for my King Lear essay. My teacher's main feedback was to 'elaborate on context and connect that to the argument, as well as to explain my quotes a bit. Sometimes I don't know what technique is in my quotes and whether they are the best ones to use.
Thanks,

Cool! Let's go.


Before we get into this, I'm going to give you a little 'tip' for making virtually perfect topic sentences, every time.

Basically, it takes the structure of this:

1. [Author] verb [idea and subject matter/prompt], verbing [idea and subject matter/prompt].

OR

[Verb]ing [idea and subject matter/prompt],  [Author] [verb] [idea and subject matter/prompt].

For example:

1. Shakespeare characterises Lear and Gloucester as embodiments of impetuousness and gullibility, implying that these traits are the ultimate cause of their disillusionment and eventual downfall.

OR

2. Utilising Lear and Gloucester and embodiments of impetuousness and gullibility, Shakespeare implies that these traits will ultimately be humanity's downfall.

The reason that there are 'two' topic sentences is pretty obvious, as they're each inverses of the other. I.e., the start of once sentence is the end of the second sentence, and vice versa. The only reason for this is to mask that you're using a pattern. This means that you won't have 3-5 topic sentences that are structurally exactly the same. Instead, you have one or two topic sentences that take the form of Pattern 1, and one or two topic sentences that take the form of Pattern 2. (You'll notice that the first three of your paragraphs starts with "Shakespeare <verb>").

This is the pattern I teach to my students, because it's quick, easy, reminds you to present your paragraph idea and link the idea to the prompt, and will almost always start the paragraph off well with strong expression.

Feel free to ask questions of course. (To the people who are reading this as a 'guest', you'll need to make an ATAR Notes account before you see the option to reply.


PARAGRAPH 1: Lack of insight into the mechanisms of deceptive individuals
Shakespeare implies that the gullible and impetuous nature of mankind, embodied in the characters Lear and Gloucester, as the cause of their disillusionment and eventual downfall. I like the idea within this topic sentence; however, I feel like that bit you have inserted between the commas impacts negatively on the sentence's clarity. It's a 'roundabout' way of saying what you want to say, so I feel like the revisions outlined above would be a 'punchier' start to the paragraph. (Also see the last essay I gave feedback on - you generally want to write "embodies" instead of "embodied".Shakespeare’s depiction Similarly to the embodies/embodied thing, you want to say "Shakespeare depicts" instead of "Shakespeare's depiction" (usually). You might say "Shakespeare depicts Lear's abuse of power, lack of empathy, and bad judgment to reflect the widespread discontent of the court due to Henry VIII’s lack of moral authority during his rule" -- just to clear things up a bit. of Lear’s abuse of his power and position, as well as his lack of empathy and judgement, reflects the widespread discontent due to Henry VIII’s lack of moral authority during his rule. Lear’s absolute authority at the beginning of the play is seen in his monologue “Know that we have divided in three our kingdom… while we unburdened crawl toward death”. Lear’s imperative language as he addresses the storm, “Blow, winds and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow, you cataracts and hurricanoes, spout till you have drenched our steeples” implies that Lear has lost touch with reality as a consequence of this lack of judgement. The image of Lear, mad, destitute, and removing his clothes in “Off, off you lendings. Come, unbutton here” reinforces Lear’s pitiful and helpless state, and presents a stark contrast to the power and wealth he was depicted with in the beginning of the play. In the Gloucester subplot, the metaphor “I have no way, and therefore want no eyes: I stumbled when I saw” shows Gloucester’s epiphany that he was blind to the scheming mechanisms of Edmond when he still had his eyes, and ironically is able to see his true nature clearly now that he has lost his sight. When Gloucester attempts to suicide, his rail to the gods, “O you mighty gods! This world I do renounce, and in your sights shake patiently my great affliction off” exemplifies his despair and disillusionment. Lear and Gloucester’s deterioration from men of immense power into their respective states of madness and blindness substantiates Shakespeare’s assertion that the rash and credulous nature of individuals is a fatal human flawStuff in red is BEAST. Awesome!

So, you'll notice I didn't add comments after each sentence or anything like that, but that's because the mistake you're making is more structural than it is sentence-by-sentence.

Your teacher said that you should 'explain your quotes a bit', so just take a look back at the stuff that I've highlighted in orange. Basically, there's an equal amount of quoting and an equal amount of non-quoting in that small block. So, you've got a really high concentration of quotes going on, which makes it hard for you to properly focus on the quotes. You've got a 'quantity' over 'quality' kind of thing going on.

Take a look at the paragraph that I've put within the spoiler.

Spoiler

Rose condemns the adversary system of trial, utilising the dialogue of his characters to demonstrate the ways in which the Western judicial system can promote a miscarriage of justice. As some minor discussion precedes the beginning of the jury’s deliberation, Rose conveys how the juror’s interpretation of the case is already corrupted by the eloquence of the State’s counsel. As Twelfth Juror remarks, “What’d you think of the prosecuting attorney? I liked the way he hammered home his points, one by one, in logical sequence”, Rose comments on the injustice of the State using their monetary power to create a case with “no dead spots” when the accused can afford no such luxuries. Such discrepancies between lawyers manifest themselves into the juror’s discussion and subsequent behaviour, as Eighth Juror comments, “I would have asked for another lawyer.” This assertion stems from another way in which the adversary system of trial enables misuse of power; it allows fallible witness testimony. In a judicial system entirely centred around concepts on winning and losing, Rose demonstrates how the power of witness testimony – and the importance it holds with the justice system – has the ability to establish a ‘winning’ case for the prosecution rather than establish the reality of events. Such power can be seen in the juror’s assertions that “that’s the whole case!” and “you couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a million years”, when in reality “no one ever will [know what happened]”. Thus Rose’s opinion on the structure of the justice system and the importance it places on witness testimony is conveyed by the negative portrayal of such things within Twelve Angry Men. Hence, the abuses of power are firmly demonstrated by the playwright’s depiction of the justice system.

This is a paragraph that I wrote a few years ago under exam conditions when I was closer to your age, and I would rate it as 'pretty good'. You'll see that the expression is decent, the analysis is deep enough, and the flow isn't stuttered or anything like that. You'll also notice at least three things about my quotes. 1) Most of them are very short. 2) They all work seamlessly into my own grammar, and 3) I analyse most of them quite a lot, so the paragraph is mostly analysis.

This is what you want to go for.

Lear’s absolute authority at the beginning of the play is seen in his monologue “Know that we have divided in three our kingdom… while we unburdened crawl toward death”. Lear’s imperative language as he addresses the storm, “Blow, winds and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow, you cataracts and hurricanoes, spout till you have drenched our steeples” implies that Lear has lost touch with reality as a consequence of this lack of judgement. The image of Lear, mad, destitute, and removing his clothes in “Off, off you lendings. Come, unbutton here” reinforces Lear’s pitiful and helpless state, and presents a stark contrast to the power and wealth he was depicted with in the beginning of the play[/u].

Hopefully that gives you a visual representation of how many quotes you've got in such a short amount of space. The bits that I've underlined   is better. See, for that quote in the underlining, you've got quite a bit more in the way of explanation. You could go even further by saying why it shows that he's in a pitiful state (like, just add maybe another sentence that 'connects the dots' for the reader to truly flesh out your analysis. Check out this close reading on Hamlet as an example of how one might write about Shakespeare and 'explain' quotes more.

In terms of your concern about not knowing if they're the "right" ones to use... Well, this just comes with practise, but it isn't a huge concern. It's true that there can be a 'perfect' quote, and it's amazing if you can pull it out of your hat, but you can still hit the criteria in all the right ways by using decent quotes, so long as your writing and analysis are both top notch. Just keep writing and thinking critically about the language you're quoting, and you'll start to realise that some quotes will 'do more' for you than others. Basically, the bit in your first paragraph after the orange was really good, and that's the type of analysis you want to get at. However,  you want to do this for more of the paragraph. The best quotes are the ones that are going to allow you to write insightful and perceptive analysis, like you've done in the second half of the paragraph.


Your other paragraphs:

To make your teacher happy, I would have drawn more on the difficulties of Elizabeth 1 that you alluded to at the start of your paragraph. What I would have done was, about halfway through your paragraph when you're starting to get right into the nitty-gritty/bulk of your quoting/analysis, refer back to Elizabeth in terms of your analysis. I mean, as part of your analysis, write something like, "This is one fundamental influence that Elizabeth had on the work, as [character] is impacted by [gender/legitimacy]. Ultimately, this allows Shakespeare to explore the nature of legitimate rule and [bla bla bla...]"

So, when your teacher says to 'elaborate on context' and to 'connect that to the argument'... you connect the context to the argument through allowign the context to shape your analysis in some ways, as I just outlined. When you allow the context to filter through to your analysis, that's "connecting" the context to your argument (because your analysis IS the bulk of your argument). In order to allow the context to come through in your analysis, you'll obviously have to talk about it a little bit more so that you can jump from the 'details' of the context to the analysis of the play. If you're using the TEEL structure, when you come to the 'explain' bit, just explain the connection between the quote/the play and the context that you can discuss, and this will naturally see you elaborating and connecting the context to your argument!

Also refer to your fourth paragraph. You mentioned Christianity, but then only implicitly deal with it through the themes of your quotes, whereas closer to the middle of the paragraph you could reintroduce the concept of redemption/justice as shaped by the historical/social context by explicitly mentioning how that context has filtered into Shakespeare's language or construction of the play. Third paragraph, mentioned succession, but then you'd want to explicitly 'bring it back' later in the paragraph and discuss with more attention.

In fact, refer to the paragraph I left you in the spoiler. You'll notice that it's talking about justice, the adversary system of trial, and the state's power. All of these things are closely linked to the historical context (1950s, which saw some pretty crazy stuff happening in America), and I filter in/intersperse this context into the entire paragrpah. This is sort of what you need to get closer to


Basically, your stuff is really good, but your teacher is pretty on point when she says explain your quotes and be inspired more by the context. There's no point going in detail over all three paragraphs, because your writing is pretty decent, and you don't make unique mistakes in each of the paragraphs. Everything I've said in this post refers to all of your paragraphs.

IN SUMMARY:

- Deal more directly with the context within your analysis.
- Be more patient with your quoting. Do it less, and use short quotes often, giving your evidence the attention it deserves. Remember that there are people out there that write entire theses on just one scene!
- Remember to completely integrate your quotes into your own grammar
- At times, be more 'direct' with your writing (outlined in the topic sentence rant).


Let me know if you need any further assistance, or have any questions about what I've said! Probably just smashed you with a tonne to take in, so totally happy to talk it over with you a little bit more LOL.


If you'd like your essay marked, you won't be able to post it until you make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to copy and paste your essay and post it up here for me to mark!

[jaimebaker97]

Hello
I do Advanced English and this is my Module C essay. The Question was "analyse and discuss representations of politics and people in the text Wag The Dog with at least one related text"
If you could give me some feedback that would be awesome! I'm mostly worried that I haven't fully addressed the question and that my connections between texts are weak.
Thank You!!



  Representations of people or politics differentiate in the publics view depending on how they are perceived to see it, such as through the manipulation of the media. This can be explored through the texts “Wag The Dog” by Barry Levinson, “Paleo Pete” by A Current Fair (Channel Nine) and “American Way Of War” by Los Angeles Times. The use of literary, film and visual techniques allows the analysis of how conflicting perspectives result from different interpretations of the same facts.

  Media holds a powerful leverage upon the general public, especially American. “Wag The Dog” explores how the influence of media can manipulate a society's opinion or views on an event or situation. The black comedy satirises the belief the American population holds in the media. The metaphor of “wagging the dog” is underlined throughout the entirety of the film establishing how easily the media influences the general population; this is seen through the merchandising of the war. A close up shot of a propaganda shirt with “Fuck A Albania” printed across it in bold letterings is a strong example of the impact of television, although public have no hard proof of the war with Albania for themselves, they are quick to support the war when told by the media. A ‘badge of honour’ stating “Reelect the President” is also pinned to the shirt portraying how a whole population is able to overlook an event so serious as the President molesting a twelve year old girl when told to by a television screen. Wag the Dog' repeatedly exemplifies society's complete trust in the imagery of media presented to them, and subsequently their seduction by political propaganda. A similar idea is evident in the political cartoon “The American Way Of War” which satirises the way Americans can merchandise tragedies so serious as the Afghan war. This is shown through the use of the rule of thirds to exemplify the barrier between a public controlled by the media and true reality. In the foreground we see a soldier walking into darkness, symbolising him entering the terror of war, while the group of people in the background can be seen lounging around a television with completely comfortable body language, each of their faces is directly focused on a screen of some description. The casual dialogue of “hmmm. Gotta remember to slap one of those yellow ribbon thingies on the back of the minivan” represents the level of obliviousness the public has in relation to situations so serious as war. This obliviousness stems from the manipulative powers of the media; they are able to modify the public’s opinions to suit their means, in this situation for a profit from the merchandising. Both texts explore the way in which the media is able to direct the public’s thoughts and opinions.

  Manipulation and secrecy is evident in both the texts “Wag The Dog” and “Paleo Pete”. “Wag The Dog” explores privacy that circulates the American political system, this is satirised through symbolic lighting shown throughout the creative segment. Brean, Ames, Motss and the creative team are seated around a table discussing the execution of their fake war. The light is directly focused on the table contrasting with the darkness and shadows that engulf each member seated. This use of lighting manifests each of the characters iniquitous characterization, portraying the immoral actions they are actually committing. Ironically these actions are generally overlooked; although the person they are trying to save is completely horrific and evil, they continue with the execution of their plan as if it were any other job. The dark lighting around the characters further manifests the secrecy of what they are doing, the general public will never know the war is fake and this is where the true irony lies. The American population is completely in the dark to the manipulation and seduction; they only have knowledge of what they are being fed by the political and creative team. In comparison the Current Affair news story “Paleo Pete” derives it’s manipulation of their viewers purely from untrue statements and powerful language in order to engage the audience and direct their attention. Current Affair’s use of high modality language manifested in the context “He is popular, polarising, unqualified and dangerous” portrays their willingness to shift their audience’s opinions and belief in order to achieve their own success. Although the entire news story is based around Pete abusing the supposedly ‘dangerous’ Paleo diet for his own personal financial gain, the Paleo diet is proven to be incredibly healthy way of life. Further when looking closely at the context it is proven at the time of production of “Paleo Pete” channel nine rates were low, compared to channel sevens high ratings. This manipulation can be compared with that seen in “Wag The Dog” with both parties impacted their responder’s views for their own financial gain.


  Illusion versus reality is explored in the texts “Wag The Dog” and “Paleo Pete”. Levinson creates an ironic twist in his black comedy through allowing his viewers to witness the fabrication of the fake war. Juxposition is used throughout the duality of the two screens during the creation of the war footage, an Albanian girl running across a burning bridge with sounds of war blazing in the background and the computer screens actually manipulating the footage. The responder is able to see the fake war footage in its creation and therefore Levinson is creating an ironic twist with his use of Juxposition. While we have the knowledge that the war is an illusion, it is reality to the general public. As they have no reason to believe it to be fake. This irony is a recurring idea throughout the entirety of the film, what we see as a reality versus what the population sees as their reality in the film. A similar idea is present in the political cartoon “The American Way Of War” where split perspectives are visualized to represent the illusion of war versus its reality. On one side we see a soldier marching off to his fourth war, as stated, with a grim expression upon his face. Darkness expresses the horrors his is about to endure surround him. On the other side we see a family staring at a television, in a form being controlled by the television. The family states they “gotta slap one of those yellow ribbon thingies onto the back of the mini van” this shows they have no concept of what war really is, rather they see it as the media wants them to see it.

 

[turnera02]

Hi
I'm in year 11 Advanced English at the moment and this is my module B essay, the question was "Othello is defined by an inherent tension between loyalty and deception.’ In light of your critical study, how does this statement resonate with your own interpretation of Othello?" I'd really just like any feedback available as my teacher does not give much!

The binary opposites of loyalty and deception are relevant in all timeframes and societies. In Shakespeare’s Othello, the tension between loyalty and deception is highlighted in the characterisation of Othello and Iago, as well as the interactions of these various characters with the Elizabethan society at the time. Shakespeare challenges the Elizabethan society by also exploring the universal themes and concerns of jealousy, envy and racial tension, which act to contribute to the loyalty and deception in the play, ultimately shaping the play as a whole.

One of the many reasons that Othello resonates with modern audiences is because the characters are so universal. There is Iago, a typical villain, and Othello, the outsider who also happens to be the tragic hero. Both these characters are transferable among all timeframes. The protagonist and antagonist, that is Othello and Iago, are consistently comparable due to the themes of allegiance that the former is associated with, and deceit the latter is associated with. However within the actual play, Iago is seen in an admiral and positive way, due to his powerful language and ability to manipulate others, an example is when he questions Othello of Desdemona’s integrity, and reassures that he is only doing so because of his love for Othello, “I hope you will consider that what I have spoken Comes from my love”. His image of respect is seen by the repetition of ‘honest Iago’, “Honest Iago,/My Desdemona must I leave to thee” “I know, Iago,/Thy honesty and love doth mince this matter”. The contradictory statements and dramatic irony highlight the tension between the appearance of loyalty and the deception within the play, illuminating Iago’s complete power and the other characters naivety. Shakespeare emphasises through his depiction of loyalty and deceit, the power that language holds, not just in an Elizabethan era, but in modern day contexts too. 

Othello’s love for Desdemona was his destructive force, his ‘otherness’, and the ability for it to be used for Iago’s gain, contributed significantly to his downfall. Iago used his ‘otherness’ by planting the seeds of doubt in Othello’s mind, playing upon his fears regarding Desdemona’s loyalty with lies and innuendo. Dramatic irony is used heavily in regards to the development of Othello’s doubt; the audience knows who is really loyal and who is deceiving him, however Othello is completely unaware. Iago’s faith in chance, when asking Othello in Act 3 Scene 3  "Tell me but this, / Have you not sometimes seen a handkerchief / Spotted with strawberries in your wife's hand?", is the catalyst for when Othello truly believes Iago. The use of dramatic irony intensifies the deception occurring in this scene in regards to Desdemona’s infidelity, when in fact she has only been loyal. Shakespeare highlights the destruction that a clouded judgement can have, showing the devastating outcomes due to not being able to differentiate between loyalty and deceit.

Shakespeare challenges the patriarchal society of his time. Othello is a ‘Moor’, he is a notably black person in a very white society. His role as an outsider is further exacerbated as he has an important role in his society, rather than being on the fringe. However his status as a ‘moor’ ultimately destines him for destruction. Othello was once a humble and noble man who spoke with clarity and meaning “Most potent, grave, and reverend seigniors, My very noble and approved good masters…Hath this extent, no more. Rude I am in my speech…”. However he succumbs to his stereotypes when he recognises “Haply for I am black…I am to blame”. The high modality speech used illuminates the struggle with the simplest part of his identity – his foreignness. His lack of self esteem provided Iago with the basis to manipulate and further destruct Othello, using his jealousy and clouding his judgement of loyalty and deception. Shakespeare illuminates that a very patriarchal society will bring destruction – if equality is not present and racial tension exists, disaster will occur.

The universal themes of loyalty and deception are examined in William Shakespeare’s Othello. The characterisation present in the play further unifies the themes present and allows for modern day interpretation on a plethora of levels. The way in which Shakespeare challenges the Elizabethan society by exploring the timeless themes such as racial tension, jealousy and envy, further contribute to the overall unified artistic expression of human experience.

[patty_cakes]

Hi Ned Nerb!

Could you please take a look at my Module B and Discovery essays for me? I would like to know how I can make my arguments more clear and concise.

Thanks in advance!!
 

[brenden]

Hello
I do Advanced English and this is my Module C essay. The Question was "analyse and discuss representations of politics and people in the text Wag The Dog with at least one related text"
If you could give me some feedback that would be awesome! I'm mostly worried that I haven't fully addressed the question and that my connections between texts are weak.
Thank You!!

"Analyse and discuss representations of politics and people in the text Wag The Dog with at least one related text"

  Representations of people or politics differentiate in the publics view depending on how they are perceived to see it, such as through the manipulation of the mediaCool idea! There are some slight expression flaws..."depending on how they are perceived to see it" -- it's a bit unclear what you're trying to say here (in that your thought just hasn't been accurately given to the reader!". This can be explored through the texts “Wag The Dog” by Barry Levinson, “Paleo Pete” by A Current Fair (Channel Nine) and “American Way Of War” by Los Angeles Times. The use of literary, film and visual techniques allows the analysis of how conflicting perspectives result from different interpretations of the same facts. I would personally have an introduction that's maybe one or two sentences longer, so you can sort of 'warm' the reader up to it as opposed to diving right in. The last sentence, I would always recommend to be a blatant statement of your contention/argument. Like, I would just write... "Hence, I think that [my argument]". Don't actually write "I think that", but that's the type of 'last sentence' I mean. Hence, Wag the Dog provides a fundamentally cynical representation of politics and people that is complemented by [other texts]. Just something nice to cap off your introduction, that also makes the point of your essay very clear. The other sentence that I would add would be a surveying of the ideas within your essay (i.e., tell the reader the essence of what you're goign to say ahead of time). It might feel repetitive when you're going to write about those things in your essay anyway - but that's okay!

  Media holds a powerful leverage upon the general public, especially American. Check out the detailed feedback I offered on topic sentences here: Re: English Advanced Essay Marking -- hopefully it helps! I like the idea in this sentence, but think it would 'sound' nicer “Wag The Dog” explores how the influence of media can manipulate a society's opinion or views on an event or situation. The black comedy satirises the belief the American population holds in the media. The metaphor of “wagging the dog” is underlined throughout the entirety of the film establishing how easily the media influences the general population; this is seen through the merchandising of the war. A close up shot of a propaganda shirt with “Fuck A Albania” printed across it in bold letterings is a strong example of the impact of television, although public have no hard proof of the war with Albania for themselves, they are quick to support the war when told by the media. The stuff I've highlighted in red, you should do less of, and the stuff I've highlighted in green is good! The reason I don't like the red sentences is because a) they're both of really similar, short length, and so when they're put next together they 'sound' a bit ugly, and b) they don't "add" much to the criteria - like it's not analysing, giving evidence or anything - they feel like "fluffing about" sentences. Green on the other hand is good because it starts to hit the criteria and address the question - you've got your quotes there for a reason and you use them to discuss your paragraph idea (manipulation of the media).A ‘badge of honour’ stating “Reelect the President” is also pinned to the shirt portraying how a whole population is able to overlook an event so serious as the President molesting a twelve year old girl when told to by a television screen. Wag the Dog' repeatedly exemplifies society's complete trust in the imagery of media presented to them, and subsequently their seduction by political propaganda.So, you mentioned that you were afraid of not hitting the question. Here is one place in your paragraph that you could really improve that. You'll notice that you go from the green sentences, then to the underlined sentence, and then to the blue sentence.But basically, the underlined is the same as the green. That is, there's quotes and discussion. THEN, after you've completed green, and completed Underlined, you add Blue - which is a general analysis of Wag the Dog that stems from your more specific discussion. The way I would more readily hit the question is through introducing Blue EARLIER. Green and Underlined are the same thing - so it's basically repeating the same method, right? So, before writing Underlined, I would write Blue instead, after Green. Green would be the "specifics" and then you would go to the "overarching" stuff in Blue. Like a telescope from outerspace that's super zoomed in on Australia, but then it zooms out to show the whole Earth. That's the relationship between Green and Blue. So basically, if you had Green -> Blue, instead of Green -> Underlined -> Blue --- you would create another opportunity to hit the question. Okay. So. *Take some deep breaths and recover from the rant*. The reason I say this is because the question asks you to analyse and discuss and a lot of your analysis and discussion actually comes from you EXPLORING those 'zoomed out' points after the 'zoomed in' stuff. So, do that a little bit MORE. Go Green, then go Blue, but expand on the blue stuff more! Or, you could even intersperse more blue stuff IN BETWEEN green stuff, multiple times. (Obviously you'll need to do this in the same amount of words that you currently have, so it just means putting different sentences in different places). I've tried to explain this as best I can but I also have an exam tomorrow lol, so let me know if you need clarification!! A similar idea is evident in the political cartoon “The American Way Of War” which satirises the way Americans can merchandise tragedies so serious as the Afghan war. Awesome!! This is a very successful transition sentence, that connects well with the themes you've been discussing with reference to WTD. This is shown through the use of the rule of thirds to exemplify the barrier between a public controlled by the media and true reality. In the foreground we see a soldier walking into darkness, symbolising him entering the terror of war, while the group of people in the background can be seen lounging around a television with completely comfortable body language, each of their faces is directly focused on a screen of some description. The casual dialogue of “hmmm. Gotta remember to slap one of those yellow ribbon thingies on the back of the minivan” represents the level of obliviousness the public has in relation to situations so serious as war. X This obliviousness stems from the manipulative powers of the media; they are able to modify the public’s opinions to suit their means, in this situation for a profit from the merchandising. Both texts explore the way in which the media is able to direct the public’s thoughts and opinions.

Okay, so... The second half of your paragraph is actually really cool! I love your quoting and the way you're discussing how your related text touches on the themes. BUT -- you're right, in that there's not a super strong connection between the second half of para and the first half of the para. You'll see that I put a big red 'X' at one point. There, I would add a sentence that goes something like "This discussion of obliviousness is fundamental to both texts, in that... [explain]"... Just to really tie in strongly the connection between the texts in your discussion. Basically. Your paragraph is like this...
FIRST HALF (WAG THE DOG)
SECOND HALF (RELATED TEXT)
But it could be like...
FIRST THIRD
SECOND THIRD
LAST THIRD
Like, you could intersperse the relationship between sentences more than you currently do, rather than wrapping it all up in the final sentence of the paragraph. Use words like 'similarly', 'contrarily', 'moreover', 'further', '[text] treats this notion in a similar way...'

But I do like your ideas and quotes and stuff - going really well!

  Manipulation and secrecy is evident in both the texts “Wag The Dog” and “Paleo Pete”. “Wag The Dog” explores privacy that circulates the American political system, this is satirised through symbolic lighting shown throughout the creative segment. Brean, Ames, Motss and the creative team are seated around a table discussing the execution of their fake war. The light is directly focused on the table contrasting with the darkness and shadows that engulf each member seated. This use of lighting manifests each of the characters iniquitous characterization, portraying the immoral actions they are actually committing. Ironically these actions are generally overlooked; although the person they are trying to save is completely horrific and evil, they continue with the execution of their plan as if it were any other job. The dark lighting around the characters further manifests the secrecy of what they are doing, the general public will never know the war is fake and this is where the true irony lies. The American population is completely in the dark to the manipulation and seduction; they only have knowledge of what they are being fed by the political and creative team. In comparison the Current Affair news story “Paleo Pete” derives it’s manipulation of their viewers purely from untrue statements and powerful language in order to engage the audience and direct their attention. Current Affair’s use of high modality language manifested in the context “He is popular, polarising, unqualified and dangerous” portrays their willingness to shift their audience’s opinions and belief in order to achieve their own success. Although the entire news story is based around Pete abusing the supposedly ‘dangerous’ Paleo diet for his own personal financial gain, the Paleo diet is proven to be incredibly healthy way of life. Further when looking closely at the context it is proven at the time of production of “Paleo Pete” channel nine rates were low, compared to channel sevens high ratings. This manipulation can be compared with that seen in “Wag The Dog” with both parties impacted their responder’s views for their own financial gain.

Okay, so this paragaph has a similar "story of two halves".
First half: DARK LIGHTING!!!
Second half: LANGUAGE!!!
---I do like that there are "categories" in your paragraph, because it makes it easy for your to write with organisaion, and it makes sense in the reader's mind. However, as I've already mentioned, these categories are in some way damaging your connection between the texts, even though the analysis is great for both. What's the solution? Well, something you might like to try is divindg your paragraphs (loosely) into 'quarters'.The first quarter would be WTD, then related text, then WTD, then related text. This would mean talking about dark lighting for half the amount, and introducing another idea. I think this would be good - show a little more versatility to your paragraphs and ensure they don't get "stale", and it would also help you connect. You'd just have to get your transitions right.

In terms of connecting to the question... I'm starting to wonder whether you're straying too far from "politics". Although, I guess the theme of 'secrecy' is connected directly to talking about 'people', and you're generally discussing the media, which I suppose is 'implicitly' political, but not explicitly political in the way that I think the question demands. So, I think it might do you some good to deal more explicitly with a few political points of analysis and really reinfoce the relevance of your essay to the question.


  Illusion versus reality is explored in the texts “Wag The Dog” and “Paleo Pete”. Levinson creates an ironic twist in his black comedy through allowing his viewers to witness the fabrication of the fake war. Juxposition is used throughout the duality of the two screens during the creation of the war footage, an Albanian girl running across a burning bridge with sounds of war blazing in the background and the computer screens actually manipulating the footage. The responder is able to see the fake war footage in its creation and therefore Levinson is creating an ironic twist with his use of Juxposition. While we have the knowledge that the war is an illusion, it is reality to the general public. As they have no reason to believe it to be fake. This irony is a recurring idea throughout the entirety of the film, what we see as a reality versus what the population sees as their reality in the film. A similar idea is present in the political cartoon “The American Way Of War” where split perspectives are visualized to represent the illusion of war versus its reality. On one side we see a soldier marching off to his fourth war, as stated, with a grim expression upon his face. Darkness expresses the horrors his is about to endure surround him. On the other side we see a family staring at a television, in a form being controlled by the television. The family states they “gotta slap one of those yellow ribbon thingies onto the back of the mini van” this shows they have no concept of what war really is, rather they see it as the media wants them to see it.

So! Cool paragraph. Does well to talk about representation and meaning (illusion and reality), but I feel like the second half has some slightly repetitive discussion of The American Way of War (tv analsyis etc), and it follows the same pattern of feedback as the other paragraphs. (Two halves, not stringently connected, perhaps not dealing with 'politics' explicitly enough.

I think your analysis is pretty cool, but it's given in really big blocks (each half of the paragraph) that could potentailly be split into structural quadrants. Sorry I haven't pointed out all the good bits of analysis - in a slight hurry - but believe me when I say that I do like what your'e talking about!

Otherwise: I think you're right, and you do need to deal with the questions more explicitly, and I think your discussion of related text with themes of WTD would benefit from a structural change, where you mingle in your discussion throughout the paragraph rather than the "halves".

Okey dokey -- let me know if there's anything else I can do or if something doesn't make sense! Well done - keep improving!

[heids]

Hi
I'm in year 11 Advanced English at the moment and this is my module B essay, the question was "Othello is defined by an inherent tension between loyalty and deception.’ In light of your critical study, how does this statement resonate with your own interpretation of Othello?" I'd really just like any feedback available as my teacher does not give much!

Disclaimer: sorry you landed up with me not Brenden, but since I'm 90% copying what he said for the others anyway , hope it's still helpful.  Also, as a VCE'er and someone who hasn't read the text, I can't comment on the textual links and don't know the criteria well enough to know what a Mod B essay should look like.
P.S. I've highlighted anything that's a bit waffly/unnecessary/doesn't actually say much or add anything blue.  Either cut it out or revise the sentence.
 
The binary opposites of loyalty and deception are relevant in all timeframes and societies. In Shakespeare’s Othello underline/italicise title of text, the tension between loyalty and deception is highlighted in the characterisation of Othello and Iago, as well as the interactions of these various characters with the Elizabethan society at the time. You could make this sentence 'punchier' by turning the 'is highlighted' (passive) into 'highlights' (i.e. the text actively does something).  I'd try: 'Shakespeare's Othello highlights the tension between loyalty and deception through the characterisation of…'  I was going to turn it into 'Shakespeare's Othello characterises Othello and Iago as… highlighting the tension between loyalty and deception.'  But it didn't work, because your sentence didn't explain specifically how these characters are characterised.  Just saying that they're 'characterised' doesn't give me much; what are they characterised as? and how does this highlight the tension between loyalty and deception?  You could make this clearer and more specific.  Shakespeare challenges GOOD!  This is active and punchy the Elizabethan society by also exploring the universal themes and concerns of jealousy, envy and racial tension, which act to contribute to the loyalty and deception in the play, ultimately shaping the play as a whole. Act to contribute = 2 verbs, only need one.  'Ultimately shaping the play as a whole' seems stuck in to sound nice/impressive, but it doesn't actually add much.
Next thing: So what's your contention?  I don't know what you're actually arguing, overall; your three paragraphs feel a bit like three disjointed points that don't add up to an overall argument.  [copying Brenden here] You need to wrap up the intro with a sentence like 'Hence/Ultimately, I think that [my argument].' (Not using the words 'I think that', of course.

Here I'll discuss an issue you have throughout the essay: relevance.  Like in that intro, you could explain a bit more the relevance of the themes jealousy/racial tension - I can't see how they contribute to loyalty/deception in the play.  Some of your paragraphs/ideas seem only slightly related.  Even if you can see in your mind how something is related to the topic, you've got to signpost signpost signpost this to the assessor throughout.  Let's face it, the assessor's pretty dumb, they can't read your mind and if you don't bother filling in gaps, they won't either.  You've got to really really clearly specify all your links and show the development of your thought.

Making it 'relevant' doesn't just mean 'state the words loyalty and deception'.  Like obviously, you're not going to write an essay on fluffy pink rabbits, and then sandwich each paragraph with a variation on 'This demonstrates the inherent tension between loyalty and deception in Shakespeare's Othello' - because, surprise surprise, the assessor's not likely to see the link.  You can't make random claims of 'this shows this', unless you actually demonstrate that it does, and how it does.  A one-sentence link from a totally different idea from your practice essay on a different topic ... but the assessor's never going to know *wink wink*... doesn't work.  Because the assessor WILL know.

One of the many reasons that Othello resonates with modern audiences is because the characters are so universal. Here's what I mean about relevance.  From reading this TS, I simply can't see how it relates to the topic at all.  I need you to show me exactly how!  See Brenden's topic sentence structure for some help. There is Iago, a typical villain, and Othello, the outsider who also happens to be the and tragic hero. Both these characters are transferable among all timeframes. Here, you could: a) explain exactly what you mean - in what way are they transferrable? and b) think more about how it's relevant to the topic. The protagonist and antagonist, that is Othello and Iago, are consistently comparable due to the themes of allegiance that the former is associated with, and deceit the latter is associated with. Could try: 'The protagonist Othello is constantly associated with allegiance, while contrastingly the antagonist Iago is associated with deceit'.  P.S. Nice that you used the word 'allegiance' here!  Search for a couple of synonyms for key words in any prompt; it helps you avoid repeating yourself, because you can swap them up a bit.  However within the actual play, Iago is seen in an admiral admirable and positive way Here, do you mean that other characters in the play see Iago as good, whereas he is shown as a villain to the audience?  It took me a couple of reads to get this, you could be a bit clearer., due to his powerful language and ability to manipulate others Love it!  That underlined bit is clear, sounds nice, flows well, and is analytical! ,  an example is when he questions Othello of Desdemona’s integrity, and reassures that he is only doing so because of his love for Othello, “I hope you will consider that what I have spoken Comes from my love”.  His image of respect is seen by the repetition of ‘honest Iago’, “Honest Iago,/My Desdemona must I leave to thee” “I know, Iago,/Thy honesty and love doth mince this matter”. The contradictory statements and dramatic irony highlight the tension between the appearance of loyalty and the deception within the play, illuminating Iago’s complete power and the other characters possessive apostrophe naivety. Shakespeare emphasises through his depiction of loyalty and deceit, the power that language holds, not just in an Elizabethan era, but in modern day contexts too. This feels a bit back to front: I mean, it finishes off with the focus on the power of language, rather than on the prompt.  Also, again, I struggle to draw that link between your evidence and what it shows about loyalty and deceit.

Othello’s love for Desdemona was his destructive force, his ‘otherness’, and the ability for it to be used for Iago’s gain, contributed significantly to his downfall. again - how is this relevant to the topic? Iago used his ‘otherness’ explain what 'otherness' means; from my viewpoint as someone who hasn't read the text, I can't see HOW Iago uses this 'otherness' to overthrow Othello – firstly, I don't even know what the 'otherness' is, let alone how it's used! by planting the seeds of doubt in Othello’s mind, playing upon his fears regarding Desdemona’s loyalty with lies and innuendo. Dramatic irony is used heavily in regards to the development of Othello’s doubt; the audience knows who is really loyal and who is deceiving him, however Othello is completely unaware. Iago’s faith in chance, when asking Othello in Act 3 Scene 3 "Tell me but this, / Have you not sometimes seen a handkerchief / Spotted with strawberries in your wife's hand?", is the catalyst for when Othello truly believes Iago. The use of dramatic irony intensifies the deception occurring in this scene in regards to Desdemona’s infidelity, when in fact she has only been loyal. Shakespeare highlights the destruction that a clouded judgement can have, showing the devastating outcomes due to not being able to differentiate between loyalty and deceit. Love this last sentence - this is the sort of sentence you should be aiming for!  You could have developed a bit more on the 'devastating outcomes' throughout the paragraph; what horrible things happened, how did it effect the characters' lives, due to this inability to differentiate?

Shakespeare challenges the patriarchal patriarchal=male-dominated, to do with oppression of women not other races society of his time. This TS is too short, plus doesn't show relevance to the topic; I like to have two 'parts' to a TS. (see Brenden's topic sentences above)  Othello is a ‘Moor’, he “As a 'Moor', Othello is a notably black person in a very white society. His role as an outsider is further exacerbated as he has an important role in his society, rather than being on the fringe. However his status as a ‘moor’ ultimately destines him for destruction. Othello was once a humble and noble man who spoke with clarity and meaning “Most potent, grave, and reverend seigniors, My very noble and approved good masters…Hath this extent, no more. Rude I am in my speech…”. However he succumbs to his stereotypes when he recognises “Haply for I am black…I am to blame”. The high modality speech used illuminates the struggle with the simplest part of his identity – his foreignness. Really like this sentence!  Once you explain more specifically HOW the high-up speech illuminates that struggle (you can't draw links without explaining them thoroughly), this will be a brilliantly analytical sentence! His lack of self esteem provided always stick to present tense: 'provides' Iago with the basis to manipulate and further destruct Othello, using his jealousy and clouding his judgement of loyalty and deception. Shakespeare illuminates that a very patriarchal society will bring destruction – if equality is not present and racial tension exists, disaster will occur. 'Inequality and racial tension will catalyse disaster.' (again punchier)

A big thing I've noticed is that most of your quotes are long and not integrated into your own grammar very well.  Try not to dump a quote at the end of a sentence; try fitting it in your flow.  Like: “However, he succumbs to societal stereotypes when he claims he '[is] to blame' because he '[is] black'.”  Or, “His nobility and humility is evident as he addresses [I don't actually know who??] as 'most potent, grave and reverend seigniors'.”   So firstly, try to find the 'core' of the quote, the main 1-6 words that really show your point, and then paraphrase the quote by cutting out everything else.  Use ellipses ... to cut out words, and square brackets [] to change the grammar of the quote to fit it with your own sentence - e.g. '[is] black' rather than 'am black'.

The universal themes of loyalty and deception are examined in William Shakespeare’s Othello. Again another chance to make it active and punchy: Shakespeare's Othello examines the universal themes of loyalty and deception'.  Sometimes doing this also highlights to you that you're repeating yourself a bit much; the punchier you are, the more you see what you're actually doing – it points out any repetition, weak arguments, waffle or other flaws.  Thus it helps you improve in other ways! The characterisation present in the play further unifies the themes present and allows for modern day interpretation on a plethora of levels. Careful!  This is a 'nothing' sentence – it's extremely vague, and ends up 22 words that don't add anything.  You don't mention a) what the characterisation is b) what those 'themes' are and c) what the interpretations are, or what 'levels' you're talking about. The way in which Shakespeare challenges the Elizabethan society by exploring the timeless themes such as racial tension, jealousy and envy, further contributes to the overall unified artistic expression of human experience in simple English, what do you mean by that last chunk of the sentence (from 'further contributes… onward)?  I can't see the relevance or what it even means..
Your conclusion wasn't up to the level of the rest; it's a plain rehash of the intro (and the first sentence is just 'the text explores the themes the prompt said', which anyone could say so it feels a bit boring and shallow), but it's vaguer/more waffly than the intro.
Your conclusion definitely should rehash what's been said to some extent, but should aim to provide something a bit new/different.  I was always hopeless at conclusions so maybe ask Brenden how to improve it.


To work on:
> Assuming I'm not totally wrong because I'm ignorant of the criteria , stick like glue to the prompt!  Always keep explaining the relevance, going into more detail and being specific.
> Integrate quotes.
> Be more concise. (Not that it's a huge problem, it's just that almost everyone could benefit with this.  How about you try going through one of your past essays and seeing how low you can get the word count without taking out any content, by switching up sentences to make them punchier and cutting out any waffle words?)
> Need a contention, a general overall argument - and your 3 paragraphs have to work together to develop that.  Not three disjointed paragraphs with only some relevance to the topic.

Please forgive me for slamming you with a whole lot of pretty negative feedback!  I'm always harsh; don't take it as an attack or think I'm saying your writing is hopeless.  It's not.  It's just you have a couple of things to improve on, don't we all?

OK, being yelled at to get off my computer now, let me know if you have any questions or need anything clarifying!


If you'd like your essay marked, you won't be able to post it until you make an ATAR Notes account here. Once you've done that, a little 'reply' button will come up when you're viewing threads, and you'll be able to copy and paste your essay and post it up here for me to mark!

[brenden]

Hi Ned Nerb!

Could you please take a look at my Module B and Discovery essays for me? I would like to know how I can make my arguments more clear and concise.

Thanks in advance!!
 

Hey Patty! Module B up first
Edit: I just read the discovery essay, and I'd be mentioning the same strengths and weaknesses, so decided not to worry about it... However, I'd love to see you come back with another essay, focussing on writing naked sentences and see how much improvement we can get out of you


William Butler Yeats provides a clear insight into his personal and universal spheres shaped by the events of his tumultuous context through which he experienced the full extent of tensions between stability and change "by the events of his... context", "through which he experienced"... --- the first one doesn't make sense, and the second one could be more concise! I know what you mean by personal sphere, but what about that sphere is universal? Does that adjective add much to the sentence? I can tell what happened in this sentence. You had something to say, and then you thought it "wasn't enough" or "could be improved with language" and tried to jazz it up. If so, you made the wrong call! Basically, here's the meaning I got from your sentence: "William Butler Yeats provides a clear insight into his own personal reality, marred by the tension between stability and change". Is that about what you were trying to say? I think so, but look how many extra words you used! Go down to the bottom and read the stuff I've marked with **. . As such, he attempts to make meaning of the world around him through his purposeful treatment of structure, context and language when we speak of an author's 'treatment', we normally talk of their depiction of a particuarl theme. I.e., "his treatment of violence", so "his treatment of language" seems out of place (unless he actually discusses language). here, i think you're actually trying to talk about how the author USES language, which is different to how the author treats language – allowing his literary canon to transcend their unique contextual backdrop to remain relevant to responders across time This last bit about timelessness is a good idea, and the language isn't "too much" (but it almost is). I have a feeling that all of your conciseness could be found by taking a step back on what you think "good" writing should look like (as per the red asterisks) . Yeats’ early poem The Wild Swans at Coole (1919), effectively responding to his prevailing anxiety, is the start of his transition into archaic language, challenging the audience’s perception regarding the change into an apocalyptic world. The Second Coming (1920) shifts from the personal to universal sphere, his concerns validated by the sociocultural forces of his twentieth century context, where a time of war and conflict forces him to search for stability within a fluctuating modern era. His final, and most vivid, poem Leda and the Swan (1924) anchors the consequences of man’s creative and destructive nature, as well as his moral decline into an ungovernable spiral. It is Yeats’ skilful manipulation of the poetic form that platforms his search for stability in a tumultuous epoch of human history to be recognised and understood by his audience. I actually love all of your ideas (as much as I can get them out of your introduction), but it's saddening that sometimes the ideas don't speak for themselves, and instead they're spoken for by language that's a bit over the top. This introduction would be nearly perfect if it wasn't for the language, which was taking attention away from the good ideas - the ideas that will be getting you marks more than any 'impressive' language will

The Wild Swan at Coole is a deeply personal poem unnecessarywhere Yeats demonstrates the duality of change and is the beginning of ideas of anarchy also seen in The Second Coming and Leda and the Swan. Revision: In 'The Wild Swan', Years explores the dualiy of change and establishes his initial anarchist ideas which he expands in both 'The Second Coming' and 'Leda and the Swan'. You'll notice that my sentence is a bit more blunt, but seems a lot more clear. RED ASTERISKS!! Yeats purposely forms a Romantic union between nature and mankind, “The trees are in their autumn beauty...Under the October twilight” through cyclical images of times, days and seasons coool idea! and the language in this sentence is good. it's not 'too much'. Ironically, these two dichotomous objects subjects is probably better than objects, and are they necessarily dichotomous? will soon be segregated in The Second Coming revision: add, 'as', “things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”. The change, resulting from the segregation, is elucidated to using recurring motif a bit unclear. recurring is built into the definition of motif. So you could just as easily - and much more simply say - 'change is a motif'. , “Companionable streams...drift on the still water”, reflecting the duality of the unpredictability of change and the predictability of the inevitability of change. The final line of the poem, “Delight men’s eyes when I awake some day / To find they have flown away?”, uses a rhetorical question to serve as a melancholic resignation of humanity itself. The jarring nature of change in The Wild Swans at Coole spurs humanity’s predictable destruction, an idea that is further emphasised in The Second Coming and Leda and the Swan.You should go and read my feedback of this guy's essay: Re: English Advanced Essay Marking (particularly in the spoiler ---- in the spoiler is relevant to how you can be more clear with your arguments)

As a late Romantic, Yeats abhorred such destruction and voices this in The Second Coming, slowly replacing the tranquillity in The Wild Swans at Coole, influenced by the forces of World War One and the Easter Rebellion of 1916, events heading new depths of conflict and chaosa bit of a long sentence, but it's not as "over the top" as other sentences, so i don't mind it. like the reference to romanticism, the accurate (but not superfluous) description "abhorred". The multiple caesuras such as “things fall apart; the centre cannot hold” create a jarring rhythm to reflect the deep discord and anxiety felt by societyI LOVE THE GREEN! WHAT PERCEPIVE ANALYSIS during the cataclysmic era of human history where even civilian cities were transformed into battlegrounds by aerial bombardmentARRRGH but then the orange kills it! Aerial bombardment? -- idgaf about aerial bombardment! Tell me about rhythms! Tell me about discord and anixety!!!--- okay, in all seriousness, when you write 'aerial bombardment' at the  end of this sentence, it takes the reader's attention away form what it SHOULD be on, which is your SICK analysis of the language structures - that's the stuff that's really getting you marks. i would like to see this sentence revised in a way that places ALL of the emphasis on the jarring rhythm. WOW that's such good analysis. this is what i mean in the red asterisks and the stuff i said at the end of hte intro --- LET YOUR GOOD IDEAS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AND DONT TRY TO SPEAK OVER YOUR GOOD IDEAS. This effect is furthered coi love that you're about to follow it up in “turning and turning of the widening gyre” describing diametrically driven forces which when me together induce a change that is paradoxical to that of the previous era hmm, feel like it's a bit 'OTT', not too sure what you're trying to get at. Amidst the apocalyptic imagery in The Second Coming, emerges a sense of possible salvation through the Biblical allusion to the Apocalypse in Genesis, evident in “Surely some revelation is at hand; / Surely the second coming is at hand”.good! good analysis, that speaks for itself Yeats’ images then move from ambiguous to increasingly specific, describing a creature with “the body of a lion and the head of a man”, alluding to the ‘sphinx’, a creature of Ancient Egyptian mythology that is praised for its omnipotence and strength. Hence, Yeats reveals that the ongoing movement of time will induce a universal and cataclysmic change. The paradoxical statement “mere anarchy is loosed upon the world” i don't see the paradox? is it because the anarchy is 'mere'?furthers the loss of hope for all salvation reflecting Yeats’ contextual despair. As such, The Second Coming, which is rich in imagery serves as a transitory poem from tranquillity in The Wild Swans at Coole to the morbidly archaic graphics in Leda and the Swan resulting from the tension between stability and change. Dude. I straight up fucking love your discussion of the poetry, the language, the imagery. You 'get it', you know? Some students, quiet particularly with poetry, won't 'get it', and you've clicked, but you're (unfortunately) discussing such great ideas with language that's insecure. it's insecure in that, it's like you're trying to 'cover something up' with your language (as if you think the ideas are bad and the language needs to make up for it), but instead, the language is 'covering up' good ideas! Again, RED ASTERISKS. Get naked, then dress it up. Your essays will scream band 6.

Leda and the Swan, the final transition into anarchy, demonstrates the cataclysmic effects of the tension between stability and change imbued with apocalyptic imagery suggesting violence and loss of control too much in the sentence. . Such tension is shown to be the result of the struggle between man’s creative, docile nature and his innate capacity for carnageThis is a naked sentence. and it's a fkn COOL idea.. This struggle is symbolised by Leda’s rape by Zeus with the alliteration and adjective in “A sudden blow: the great wings beating” and “He holds her helpless breast upon his breast” in a Grecian context to emphasise the universality of such a struggle. However, the complete overpowering of man’s compassionate spirit is highlighted by the asyndeton when “Leda’s thighs are caressed…rape caught”, accelerating the poem’s rhythm to suggest man’s loss of control over his destructive capacity – a capacity that Yeats believed had been unleashed through the First World WarCOOL – a direct result of the tension between stability and change, perpetuated by man’s thirst for power. This is a reflection of mankind’s brutal treatment as the peaceful gyre in The Wild Swans at Coole recedes, clearly seen in “trees in their autumn beauty”, and is replaced by the destructive consequential gyre of the twentieth century. The final of Yeats’ three poems succinctly demonstrate the consequences of man’s transition from peace to anarchy through structure, language and context.

The poet and prominent public figure, William Butler Yeats, manifests his personal concerns by the events of his context and extends this to a universal sphere. Hence, the tensions between stability and change, in the plethora of recurring apocalyptic imagery, symbols and poetic devices emphasising man’s destructive nature and loss of moral foundations are elucidated. As such, The Wild Swans at Coole, The Second Coming and Leda and the Swan express Yeats’ turmoil at being confronted with the erosion of stable, humanistic values and the changes brought about by events such as World War One and the Easter Rebellion.

** What makes beauty? Think about this question.
Does something need to be impressive to be beautiful? I think the answer must be know. A butterfly can be beautiful, but need not be impressive.
Does something need to be grand, and larger than life, to be beautiful? Not the case. I've seen women wear beautiful albeit very subtle rings on their fingers.
We could go on about beauty for a while, but quite predictably it would be difficult to nut out a definition, or a set of criteria that we can use to measure what's "beautiful". However, one good description of beauty is something that gives you a moment of full appreciation. When you see a difficult try and conversion, you'd call that beautiful, because you'd appreciate what skill it took.
This is how I like to measure writing. I'll give you a piece of writing that you'll appreciate in the spoiler:

Spoiler

“This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony. I use short sentences. And I use sentences of medium length. And sometimes, when I am certain the reader is rested, I will engage him with a sentence of considerable length, a sentence that burns with energy and builds with all the impetus of a crescendo, the roll of the drums, the crash of the cymbals–sounds that say listen to this, it is important.”

Wow! How cool is that, right? The reason this works as a piece of writing is because the writing speaks for itself. There's nothing too 'fake' about it. It's special just... because. It's not special because of big words, and it's not special because the subject matter is particularly impressive. It's just... cool.
But somewhere along the lines we pick up that good writing is meant to be 'fancy'. That we should use words like "tumultuous" and "universal spheres" in order for our writing to be good. But this is a crock of shit! Absolute nonsense. Writing is nothing more than a form of communication. When you communicate well, you write well. The quote in the spoiler communicates extremely well, because it's trying to communicate the idea that variance in sentence structure improves writing. And it does that, through showing us the impact such variance can have! Very cool. You want to be almost blunt. Start blunt, then add some 'zazz'.
I'm telling you this because I want you to cut your sentences back, and I want you to write 'naked'. Write naked sentences until you feel you're supremely clear and concise, and only then start to dress your sentences up.  --- but only ever so slightly. If you do this, you'll be one of the best writers in the state. And that's only because it's psychologically difficult to do this --- we all have too much of an ego to write simply! We want to show how smart we are. Have a look at this: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
Which is one of the first places I started to learn about good writing. Strip your sentences back and build from there.


I would love for you to read up on 'minimalism'. I'll be honest in saying that it's my preferred writing style - i like to read minimalist writing, and I like to write minimalist writing (most of the time), BUT, I still think it's what you need. As I've mentioned, you aren't letting the ideas speak for themselves, and so, in answering your question,

"How do I be more concise and clear?"

there aren't actually any 'tips' or 'techniques' I can offer you. For, you don't have an issue with rambling. If you rambled (and weren't concise), I could say "use a full stop every 20 words". That would stop you rambling, and make you (hopefully) more concise. However, your lack of concision and lack of clarity is not due to any lack of skill. Rather, they're reflective of a misapplication of skill. That is, you're a skilled writer, making wrong decisions.

What I'm saying is that you're choosing a particular method of writing that is in actuality damaging your ability to be concise and clear. However, you have the skills to be concise and clear, but haven't been encouraged to make the right decision (or should I say the write decision lol). So, when I say "strip your writing back" - it's not a cop out, it's the biggest tip I can give.
 

[jamesey]

Hello! So this is a Mod A essay on 1984 & Metropolis.  Your help sounds amazing and I'm a victim of a teacher who writes 1 sentence feedback 
Also it'd be cool if you could mark harshly. Thankyou!

[brenden]

Hello! So this is a Mod A essay on 1984 & Metropolis.  Your help sounds amazing and I'm a victim of a teacher who writes 1 sentence feedback 

I'm sorry to hear this.

Spoiler

Lang and Orwell have different visions of state control. How have these visions been represented and how have they been shaped by the particular social, political and cultural contexts of each composer?

Control is a power derived from fear, and the use of technology to demean an individual from their role and purpose in society. The concept of state control is shaped by social, political and cultural features but holds its fundamental values throughout any ages. Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis is set in a dystopian society to explore the dangers of control inherent in capitalism and industrialism. Similarly, George Orwell’s novel 1984 represents this notion of power through the relationship between the totalitarian government and its powerless citizens. In both texts, we see depictions of dystopian societies of stripped humanity and divided classes, with each text produced shortly after periods of historic conflict and upheaval and thus we are presented with the outcomes of social, political and cultural contexts on each text and how this shapes the concept of state control.

Throughout history, the driving force of state control has always been a form of hierarchical social classes. Lang’s cinematic depiction of social divide in Metropolis was produced shortly after the German revolution of the Weimar Republic. Lang uses expressionistic imagery, and the strong contrast of light and shade, characteristic of German Expressionist Cinema to distinguish the two classes inhabiting the futuristic city. Repeated shots of a synchronised mass of workers are depicted in uniform black, trudging mechanically at the beginning of the film accompanied with low brass music to establish a dystopic setting. With slumped postures, they exit cage-like gates at a slower pace; suggesting work draws the life out of them. This opening sequence is juxtaposed with the light colours and open spaces of the upper city, particularly the Eternal Gardens. While workers trudge into dark tunnels, Freder, the protagonist and other sons of Metropolis’ elite run freely in an Eden-like setting, beneath towering walls and statues. This stark contrast between the upper and lower classes reflects the inequality of the time and the extent of control over the working class.

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four offers a more complex scenario of an oppressive state control regime that maintains power through propaganda, subtle psychological controls, and fear. Following the fascism and totalitarian regimes of Hitler’s Nazi Party and Stalin’s Soviet Union, Orwell creates a dystopian society of satirical extremes in which every aspect of an individual’s life, including their thoughts, are the subject of control strategies. This is implemented in the name of Big Brother, a symbol of trust and protection, yet ironic in that he represents oppression and control. This is shown by Party slogans such as “Big Brother is watching you” that resonates a form of fear and allows them to indoctrinate an easily influenced mindset. This psychological process is backed up by constant reminders that “life is better now” and “the party is prosperous”, and as a result leads people to believe what they are told. The extent of their indoctrination is further represented in the motto “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength,” where the oxymoron is symbolic of the warped truth and reality. Such an extent of psychological control through the use of propaganda and fear is reminiscent of Stalinist Russia and Nazism in Germany that was observed by Orwell.

In Metropolis, the upper class assures state control by the stripping of individuality from the working class. The City of Workers is a metaphor to the harsh events of industrialisation in WWII. This representation is assisted with low-angle shots of large machines towering over workers, of who flex and gyrate in unison to the gears and pistons of the machines as seen in the hands of the clock where they are portrayed as an extension of the machine. This shows the dehumanising nature of work in an industrial setting. Religious connotation is referred to through Moloch, a satanic deity that highlights the workers’ enslavement to industrialism. With fast paced music to emphasise the fear, Moloch is seen to open its mouth, consuming numerous workers hence symbolising the sacrifice of humans for industrial progress. Lang further conveys this notion of dehumanisation through an allusion to the “Tower of Babel” where the loincloths and shaved heads of the slaves reflect those of the workers in Metropolis. By using computer-generated imagery, he merges the mass of workers into the shape of a hand to emphasise the depersonalisation, where the slaves have become tools to serve the greed of the capitalists. Lang draws the similarities between the two stories, foreshadowing the downfall of Metropolis as a result of the misuse of power over the working class.

Similarly, 1984 explores the abuse of power by authorities and how this leads to the loss of individuality. This was influenced by the Hitler and Stalin regimes that both required the destruction of individuality in order to promote the party’s needs over the individuals. This is explored in the party’s implementation of “newspeak” that removes the possibility of rebellious thought by changing negative terms such as “bad” into “ungood”. With such a thorough control over language, the party is able to create and dictate a whole generation of brainwashed and subservient population. This is most prominent in the party’s discouragement of love, realising it as a threat thus labelling sex for enjoyment as “sexcrime”. Marriage is only permitted if state sanctioned as it may lead to “ownlife”, which is individuality and eccentricity, a trait the party aims to abolish. Loss of identity is personified in Parsons who feels “a sort of doleful pride” to his daughter who “nipped off to the patrols” resulting in his arrest. His odd reaction demonstrates the extent of his indoctrination to party ideologies and inability of original thought. Violence and abuse of power is utilised to eliminate disloyalty and assure state control by ultimately forming a race absent of individual thought.

In conclusion, both composers share similar, yet different ideas on the concept of state control. These differences and similarities are influenced by their respective contexts and time, such as World War II and Nazism as well as Stalinism in Russia. By composing creative pieces, they are able to warn audiences about the abuse of power and rebellion, thus presenting meaningful messages.

Lang and Orwell have different visions of state control. How have these visions been represented and how have they been shaped by the particular social, political and cultural contexts of each composer?

Control is a power derived from fear, and the use of technology to demean an individual from their role and purpose in society Is control the use of technology, necessarily? Be specific, but be accurate! My thoughts on opening sentences at at the start of the essay I marked here . The concept of state control is shaped by social, political and cultural features but holds its fundamental values throughout any ages Does the concept of state control have its own values? What does it meant to have values? -- An accuracy/specificity thing again. (I know it seems petty and like I'm being overly picky, but trust me, the difference between an essay where I stop once or twice and go "well, that expression is technically a bit off" and an essay where I never need to stop and say the same is a BIG difference. When you eliminate these little 'technicalities' from your writing, it will start to look bold and brilliant. I also feel like there's a 'disconnect' between these first two sentences and your next sentence, where you've tried to give context, but it was not specific/accurate enough to be relevant in the right ways.. Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis is set in a dystopian society to explore the dangers of control inherent in capitalism and industrialism. Similarly, George Orwell’s novel 1984 represents this notion of power through the relationship between the totalitarian government and its powerless citizens. In both texts, we see depictions of dystopian societies of stripped humanity and divided classes, with each text produced shortly after periods of historic conflict and upheaval and thus we are presented with the outcomes of social, political and cultural contexts on each text and how this shapes the concept of state control. In the last portion of this introduction, I feel you've been foggy on the topic. You've sort of approached it a little bit sort of, but you haven't like... grabbed that topic and gone "LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS LIL MOTHER F***ER!" I feel like you done quite talk about the context surrounding the creation of the texts, and whilst you mentioned the different in depiction of state control, I feel as if you don't specifically - like REALLY GRITT, GRRRRR,  TYPE SPECIFICALLY - talk about the representation. Plot differences? Language differences? Thematic differences? (Or similarities). Basically, I'd want you to be a little bit more bold and specific in your intro and get dirty with the topic deconstruction, so by the end of the introduction I know what you're truly trying to say.

Throughout history, the driving force of state control has always been a form of hierarchical social classes. Lang’s cinematic depiction of social divide in Metropolis was produced shortly after the German revolution of the Weimar Republic. Lang uses expressionistic imagery, and the strong contrast of light and shade, characteristic of German Expressionist Cinema to distinguish the two classes inhabiting the futuristic city This is so perfectly discussing the prompt that it's beautiful.. Repeated shots of a synchronised mass of workers are depicted in uniform black, trudging mechanically at the beginning of the film accompanied with low brass music to establish a dystopic setting. With slumped postures, they exit cage-like gates at a slower pace; suggesting work draws the life out of them. This opening sequence is juxtaposed with the light colours and open spaces of the upper city, particularly the Eternal Gardens. While workers trudge into dark tunnels, Freder, the protagonist and other sons of Metropolis’ elite run freely in an Eden-like setting, beneath towering walls and statues. This stark contrast between the upper and lower classes reflects the inequality of the time and the extent of control over the working class. I would have liked another sentence on the end, or more of a direct reference or explicit discussion to wrap up the paragraph. Something like "Hence, Lang's vision is represented by  bla bla stark contrast bla bla bla". The way you've done it is also decent, but I personally would prefer the added clarity and specificity of more explicit discussion

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four offers a more complex I like this. Not because I agree that it's more complex, but just because by using 'more', you're making comparisons, and you're one step closer to dealing with the topic adequately. scenario of an oppressive state control regime that maintains power through propaganda, subtle psychological controls, and fear. Following the fascism and totalitarian regimes of Hitler’s Nazi Party and Stalin’s Soviet Union good, Orwell creates a dystopian society of satirical extremes in which every aspect of an individual’s life, including their thoughts, are the subject of control strategies. This is implemented in the name of Big Brother, a symbol of trust and protection, yet ironic in that he represents oppression and controlexpression gets a bit clunky here.. This is shown by Party slogans such as “Big Brother is watching you” that resonates a form of fear and allows them who?to indoctrinate an easily influenced mindset. This psychological process is backed up by constant reminders that “life is better now” and “the party is prosperous”, and as a result leads people to believe what they are told. The extent of their indoctrination is further represented in the motto “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength,” where the oxymoron is symbolic of the warped truth and reality. Such an extent of psychological control through the use of propaganda and fear is reminiscent of Stalinist Russia and Nazism in Germany that was observed by Orwell.This paragraph deals really well with how Orwell's idea of state control is presented, but I feel it's lacking on how his view was shaped by the contexts he experienced. You mention it at the start and at the end, but you don't really discuss it, and I feel that if you were able to properly integrate that type of discussion in and amongst your discussion of Orwell's depiction, it would be pretty sophisticated and put your essay on another level.

In Metropolis, the upper class assures state control by the stripping of individuality from the working class. The City of Workers is a metaphor to the harsh events of industrialisation in WWII. This representation is assisted with low-angle shots of large machines towering over workers, of who flex and gyrate in unison to the gears and pistons of the machines as seen in the hands of the clock where they are portrayed as an extension of the machine expression got a big ugly in this sentence. This shows the dehumanising nature of work in an industrial setting why/how does it do this?. Religious connotation is referred to through Moloch, a satanic deity that highlights the workers’ enslavement to industrialism. With fast paced music to emphasise the fear, Moloch is seen to open its mouth, consuming numerous workers hence symbolising the sacrifice of humans for industrial progress. Lang further conveys this notion of dehumanisation through an allusion to the “Tower of Babel” where the loincloths and shaved heads of the slaves reflect those of the workers in Metropolis. By using computer-generated imagery, he merges the mass of workers into the shape of a hand to emphasise the depersonalisation, where the slaves have become tools to serve the greed of the capitalists. Lang draws the similarities between the two stories, foreshadowing the downfall of Metropolis as a result of the misuse of power over the working class. Again, I perhaps would have liked a slight integration on Lang's context just a little bit more.

Similarly, 1984 explores the abuse of power by authorities and how this leads to the loss of individualityI like this, that you've kept with 'loss of individuality' but are about to compare/contrast the texts on that particular notion. This was influenced by the Hitler and Stalin regimes that both required the destruction of individuality in order to promote the party’s needs over the individuals good!. This is explored in the party’s implementation of “newspeak” that removes the possibility of rebellious thought by changing negative terms such as “bad” into “ungood”. With such a thorough control over language, the party is able to create and dictate a whole generation of brainwashed and subservient population This is really good. Here, I'd perhaps offer a direct comparison with how the Party operates similarly to the Nazis with their control of language (in that the Nazi's called Jews rats etc etc) just that little bit extra historical discussion right about here is what i'm talking about when i mention integration. i feel like that would be really valuable to this essay. This is most prominent in the party’s discouragement of love, realising it as a threat thus labelling sex for enjoyment as “sexcrime”. Marriage is only permitted if state sanctioned as it may lead to “ownlife”, which is individuality and eccentricity, a trait the party aims to abolish. Loss of identity is personified in Parsons who feels “a sort of doleful pride” to his daughter who “nipped off to the patrols” resulting in his arrest. His odd reaction demonstrates the extent of his indoctrination to party ideologies and inability of original thought. Violence and abuse of power is utilised to eliminate disloyalty and assure state control by ultimately forming a race absent of individual thought.

In conclusion, both composers share similar, yet different ideas on the concept of state control. These differences and similarities are influenced by their respective contexts and time, such as World War II and Nazism as well as Stalinism in Russia. By composing creative pieces, they are able to warn audiences about the abuse of power and rebellion, thus presenting meaningful messages.Notice that your conclusion is the first time you directly reference the topic. Like, you introduce, then you 'present' a bunch of discussion, and then you conclude "See, look at what I've presented! You can extract from what I've presented that both composers have different ideas on state control that are influenced by their context", but I'd like the essay to more specifically discuss this throughout, because I felt like you were talking a lot about the texts, and just talking about what the texts show, but not strictly talking about  how the views were developed by the context as well as how they're represented. This might be frustrating feedback because the essay is actually really good, but I feel like a bit more grit and a bit more 'explicitness' would boost it even higher. You actually do a lot of things quite well, and overall I like the way you've developed your essay with four paragraphs that are still connected with one another. Well done, and a pretty good job! I feel quite tired rn so I'm aware that I might have been a bit lazy on the feedback and some of it -could-  be confusing, so please let me know if you disagree with anything I've said or have any questions etc! Good job mate