English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only)

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey Jamon, I was wondering if you could mark my Mod A essay. I wrote this for the trials and i only scored 17/20. All the other essays you've marked were 19s/20s I think in this one I toe the line between retell and analysis a bit but I'd like your opinion before I start fixing it for the HSC.

On the list Spencerr! Sorry you caught me on my busy day, might take another day or two

[Spencerr]

No worries Jamon! HSC ages away and I don't particularly want to confront this essay any time soon haha.

[elysepopplewell]

Hey Jamon, I was wondering if you could mark my Mod A essay. I wrote this for the trials and i only scored 17/20. All the other essays you've marked were 19s/20s I think in this one I toe the line between retell and analysis a bit but I'd like your opinion before I start fixing it for the HSC.

Hey Spencerr! I can have a go at this one for you, so you have some fresh eyes

In the spoiler:

Spoiler

The content and construction of texts are intrinsically linked with the social and historical factors inherent in a composer’s contemporary context. Love this opening sentence!Accordingly, a comparative study of Jane Austen’s social satire Pride and Prejudice (1813)(Pride) and Fay Weldon’s meta-fictional hybrid novel Letters to Alice(1993)(Letters) demonstrates how a transition in context from Austen’s 19th Century Regency England,  to Weldon’s late 20TH Century post-modern world, illuminates the dichotomous nature of societal values and attitudes. As both texts explore notions of autonomy and theories of a moral education, a comparative reappraisal elucidates new insights, enabling connections between texts to creatively enrich textual appreciation. I'm a sucker for introductions being at least four sentences. My thought process behind this is: introductory sentence, one text, second text, summarise. I think you can give a little bit more to the texts individually in separate sentences, but of course you don't want to deal with them in isolation either. So I tend to think that if you introduce Austen's text on its own, you can give the parent text the grounding it deserves. Then, talk about how a comparative study with the second text can enhance a modern insight (or however you wish you approach it). There's nothing wrong with your introduction so far, in fact I think it is because it reads so well that I'm interested in reading more. This is just a suggestion - definitely not a necessity for your work. But it might be worth playing around with it to see what you can get out of it!

It is my preferred approach to write my first sentences of a paragraph as completely removed from the texts or composers. But, it works here! Except, I think it could be stronger if you rearrange the sentence so that the composers are last in the piece. Right now, that take priority over your really insightful idea about suppression and autonomy. By rearranging the syntax, you can get the idea to shine beyond the composer.Austen and Weldon, united  in their repudiation of feminine suppression, radically advocate for individual autonomy against restrictive social constraints. Critical of legal institutions, including the system of entailment which deprived women of financial independence, Austen in Pride, censures her andocentric society for valuing marriage as an economic transaction instead of a romantic ideal. Notably, her characterisation of Charlotte as the archetypal Georgian woman, evident in her cynical decree that, “happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance,” exposes how conformation to societal expectations precludes individual felicity. Charlotte, thus, becomes a foil to Elizabeth Bennet, Austen’s counter cultural heroine who subverts typical notions of femininity.  As despite understanding that matrimony secures financial and social stability, Elizabeth’s emotive rejection of Mr Collins’ proposal, on the grounds that her “feelings in every respect forbid it!”, highlights her deviation from traditional  Regency expectations of women to be sensible and obedient. Unable to exert a similar degree of self-determination, Charlotte marries “the conceited, pompous...silly Mr Collins” for the “disinterested desire of an establishment”, and hyperbolically “sacrifices every better feeling to worldly advantage”, This underlined section is beautifully written, and for someone like me who doesn't know the text inside out, I'm learning. The thing is, your marker does know the text and this is story retell. The solution isn't to get rid of all of this! This is wonderfully written. Sometimes it is difficult to discuss characterisation, which is incredibly important to deliver the themes and plot, without going into narration. So I suggest that you actually go back and look specifically for techniques in what you've discussed. Think about tone, metaphors, similes used to describe the characters and their femininity/opposite of femininity, modality (low or high), and simpler things like alliteration. By actually going back into the text and looking for ways these characters have been described, we can use a quote with a technique, which prompts analysis rather than narration. Currently, you've chosen some great quotes. Look for things inside of them, like listing of adjectives - that's a literary manipulation that Austen chose! So rather than getting rid of what you have, jam pack it with techniques, so then you automatically trigger an analysis rather than a retell. Of course, you might need to go back and substitute your current quotes for new ones. But, have a go with what you currently have, and you might be surprised how much more sophisticated you can make it sound. Austen emphasising the dichotomy between self-fulfilment and the gendered limitations of Georgian England. Contrasting Charlotte’s hapless relationship, Elizabeth’s union with Mr Darcy, evoked by her individual aspirations and defiance of social expectations, is characterised as a “connubial felicity,” apparent in Elizabeth’s superlative declaration Love "superlative declaration" that she is “the happiest creature in the world”. Thus, Austen advocates for individual autonomy, as necessary in overcoming repressive social expectations and achieving self-actualisation. I'd bring the context back in here a little. The module is a comparative study and you've set yourself up for a context based approach. So, just in this last sentence, I'd suggest bringing it in to the context by suggesting that social expectations of women were rife in the time of Austen specifically.

Divergently, Weldon in Letters reshapes the universal value of autonomy in accordance with her postmodern context, notably by reflecting upon the reality of contemporary female emancipation.  Weldon’s examination of Alice and Aunt Fay’s capacity to travel, pursue a career and attend university, highlights the greater economic autonomy afforded to women, engendered by the Equal Pay Act (1970) and the second wave feminist movement. Accounting for dissimilar contexts, Weldon’s construction of her fictional niece “Alice”- whose symbolic “black and green hair” is a manifestation of modern individuality-captures the enduring value of autonomy by mirroring Austen’s subversive heroine, Elizabeth.  Whilst Austen subtly challenges established conventions, Weldon explicitly encourages Alice to adopt a non-conformist ideology and metaphorically “swim against the stream of communal ideals”, emphasising the need for self-determination amidst social pressures. Ironically, Aunt Fay seeks to impose her own prescriptive codes upon Alice, employing high modality when truistically asserting that Alice “must know how to read a novel..before..writing one”.  Consequently, the plot device of Alice attaining unorthodox literary success, having “sold more copies..than all of [Aunt Fay’s] novels put together” particularly as she defies Aunt Fay’s instructions,  enables Weldon to emphasise the importance of autonomy for success and in doing so, acts as a foil to Austen’s views of individual fulfilment.   You do a lot less retell in this paragraph in comparison to the first body paragraph, so that's awesome! You've made good links to Austen which is very very impressive. I tend to think that the context idea doesn't come through strong enough though. You mention it in the opening, and you compare the texts well, but if you bring the actual word of "context" forward, and specifically compare the conditions in both, then I think your analysis of the texts will be enhanced. Right now, the idea of autonomy sits solely in the plot, rather than being appreciated in the context of a modern world. If you can prove that it is relevant in the context as well as the plot, then you can make a really cool point that the tension between autonomy and society's suppression is a theme transcendent of contexts.

Furthermore, both Austen and Weldon are connected in their endorsement of a holistic education, propounding moral development via introspection and retrospective reappraisal. This last section is very wordy. Perhaps if you reversed the syntax so that this was at the start of the sentence it would be better, because the reader focuses on it rather than brushes it aside as a complicated afterthought. Always privilege the most important part of your sentence first. In Pride, Austen, through allusion to Fordyce’s Sermons, criticises traditional modes of education, notably conduct books and the pursuit of superficial “accomplishments”, for their inconsequential impact on moral growth. To this end, Austen satirically characterises Mary, whom, whilst described as “the most accomplished girl in the neighbourhood” for her study of “great books”, is ironically incapable of social sensibility, evident as she “wished to say something sensible alliteration, but knew not how.”  Didactically asserting that “we all love to instruct, though we can teach only what is not worth knowing”, Austen, thus, conveys the notion that a valuable moral education is only attainable through individualistic introspection as opposed to external sources, reflecting Regency philosopher John Locke’s theory of epistemological development that “knowledge is a matter of reflection on experience”. Exemplifying such, Elizabeth’s introspective perusal of Darcy’s letter, illustrated by self-contemplative language as she “read and reread with the greatest attention”, facilitates a newfound understanding, conveyed by asyndeton, Yess asyndeton “that she had been blind, partial, prejudiced, absurd”.  Contrasting with Mary’s stagnant moral growth borne from a defective education, as circumscribed by societal expectations to be “accomplished”, Elizabeth’s epiphany “till this moment, I never knew myself!”, results in augmented self-knowledge as she ultimately identifies her moral shortcomings.  Austen’s bildungsroman Pride thus champions introspection for improving an individual’s moral capacity, emphasising the necessity of individual autonomy for moral growth, a notion reshaped by Weldon in letters.

Whilst Austen advocates for introspection, Weldon in Letters depicts literature as a medium for moral development, celebrating its capacity to evoke empathy. Within her 1980’s context, Weldon descries the declining value of literature due to technological proliferation, typified by a modern obsession with “the tinny televisual representation of reality”. In censuring Alice, a representative of modern society, for being “too unread, too little practised in empathy”, Weldon emphasises, through an anaphora, how literary deprivation inhibits moral growth and thus, consolidates Darcy’s sentiment that reading “adds something more substantial in the improvement of [the] mind”.  Through the extended metaphor of the “City of Invention”, Weldon captures the inherent value of literature to transcend contextual limitations, imparting readers with a diachronic understanding of “new” and “old” ways. Weldon thus asserts that literature figuratively “stretches our sensibilities and our understandings”, enabling readers to empathise through vicarious experiences, this tenet of moral development is exemplified by Weldon’s reappraisal of Charlotte’s entry into marriage. Re-contextualising Austen’s canonical novel Pride, Weldon employs statistical data where “only thirty percent married...so to marry was a great prize” to elicit pathos from the reader and thus, retrospectively vindicate Charlotte’s decision to marry Mr Collins. For its incapacity to evoke such moral and empathetic responses, Austen satirises postmodern academic institutions through her parody of essay prompts “People are getting nastier, society nicer: Discuss”, reminiscent of Austen’s reproach on morally ineffectual educations. Thus, Weldon reshapes moral development to her contemporary context, championing the literary canon as a method of self-growth in contrast to Austen’s valuing of introspection.

Ultimately, by considering Pride and Letters in contiguity, it becomes apparent that Austen’s 19th Century values of autonomy and theories of moral development are creatively reshaped by Weldon to accommodate a transition in context to the 20th Century. Thus, a comparative study of Pride and Letters, by accentuating authorial and contextual disparities, engenders deeper insights into parallel thematic concerns, enabling readers to gain a more profound understanding and appreciation of both texts.

Awesome work! I commented less towards the end because it was a recurring thing I wanted to comment on so I brought it down here instead. Firstly, it is important you know that often, moving from 17/20 upwards is very difficult. If you're sitting at 10/20, it is easy to make a four mark jump by changing a structural fault, for example. But because you're sitting on 17/20, you're already up the top, you've got the structure, wording, analysis, all right. It's now about enhancing each of those things a little bit to bump you up.

I think your work needs slightly more direction. The idea of autonomy/suppression is strong, but it doesn't carry through equally throughout. Which is totally fine, it just means that the other paragraphs need to have a clear direction. We talk about the education system, which is very unique and I really enjoy it. Consider then, putting that into a thesis statement/concept statement/thematic statement in the introduction. I commented earlier on how the introduction could do with some beefing up, and I think that by fleshing out the next big idea you'll be looking at, other than the autonomy idea, needs to be put in there.

So, hypothetically, let's say these are the two main ideas you want to look into:
-Tension between autonomy and suppression
-Moral development through introspection

These should be introduced in the introduction, and they should be clearly identified throughout as being the direction for paragraphs. So, for me, the autonomy one is the best presented. I knew clearly that it was your idea. Then the moral development through introspection, I wasn't so clear on. I think that comes from the fact that it wasn't clearly expressed when it was introduced (I commented on this above, - about reversing the syntax). So consider rearranging. You juggle a few different themes as well, which is totally fine! I think it is jut about nailing the moral development idea now, and then your work will fall together beautifully. Don't sell yourself short with your conclusion either, you have a very high quality essay above, so make your conclusion about 4 sentences, and make sure that each idea is given as much time as it is due. So, don't be afraid of properly focusing on ideas in summarising them. Often, we look to gloss over them to avoid retell. But, by the time we get to the introduction, a little retell of your first idea is fine, because it won't sound repetitive, because the first idea was read so long ago - if that makes sense? So essentially, give your ideas the time they deserve in the conclusion - the conclusion is the last taste you will give the marker before they calculate your mark!

You should be thrilled with this. It might take some playing around to get this to where you want it. Like I said, often getting those last few marks is the most difficult part. But you can do it! You've given yourself plenty of time to get this right

[Jimmy Barnes]

I was wondering if you would be able to quickly run over my Module C (People and Politics) adaptable essay and tell me if it is cohesive and makes sense? Nothing too in-depth is really needed but if you could have a brief read over it that would be great

[Lauradf36]

Hi guys! Would you mind giving me some feedback on a Module C essay due on Wednesday? It's a word limit of 1000-1200 and I'm at about 1300 (which I hope is okay lol) but my main concern is that it really stands out! Thanks so much! 

[jamonwindeyer]

I was wondering if you would be able to quickly run over my Module C (People and Politics) adaptable essay and tell me if it is cohesive and makes sense? Nothing too in-depth is really needed but if you could have a brief read over it that would be great

Hey Jimmy! Happy to do it, sorry for the delay, our event at Macleay over the weekend had Elyse and I a tad busy technically you needed 25 posts for this mark, but it's one post, yolo you'll need 40 for your next one!

Spoiler

According to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle’s metaphorical aphorism, ‘Man is a political animal … and a man who lives alone is either a Beast or a God’. I think it is really clever to use a quote in your introduction, very interesting. I'd like to see you explain it in your own words a little bit more (perhaps integrated with your Thesis. This political dichotomy prevalent in Aristotelian times remains a universal truth, as the deemed ‘political beast’ is continuously and unwaveringly critiqued through literary mediums, often represented in a pejorative light to draw the ire of the audience to the (CREATE THESIS). This metafictive concept of the ‘political beast’ is revealed through an analysis of W.H. Auden’s Shield of Achilles and O What is that sound along with Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5, all of which depict the (Integrate Thesis) of (Question Stimulus) through their contemptuous and caustic representations of their contextual ‘political beasts’. Can't really comment too much on this, but the framework looks solid. Be sure your Thesis reflects the question accurately

W.H. Auden’s Shield of Achilles is a reverse pastoral that contrasts the grandeur of Homer’s The Iliad against the baseness and corruption within Auden’s totalitarian-esque reality to accentuate the (Integrate Thesis). Again, I can't really comment on this without a Thesis link. Be careful, you may need to play with your whole sentence, not just the ending. It is unlikely that every question will play nicely into exactly this wording. Auden immediately juxtaposes The Iliad’s myth of ‘marbled, well-governed cities’ against Auden’s modern reality of ‘an artificial wilderness’ to note the epistemological shift throughout history. Techniques for those quotes? The regressive, dystopian reality that emerges from this epistemological shift depicts a humanity that has succumbed to totalitarian regimes, a humanity that is synecdochically dehumanised when Auden depicts  ‘a million eyes, a million boots in line/without expression, waiting for a sign’. Again, technique here? Those two sentences could have been blended, as evidenced by the fact that you mentioned epistemological shift twice in quick succession. Construing humanity as ‘an unintelligible multitude’, Auden reveals the ‘political beast’ within totalitarian regimes and their ontological viewpoints, which depict humanity as a single, expressionless and completely obsequious entity as discerned from Auden’s totalitarian reality (Integrate Thesis). HOW is this portrayed though? Be sure to give specific examples of how Auden communicates with his audience and how the relationship between people and politics is portrayed.  Auden further represents the dehumanising ontological stance of totalitarian regimes through his accumulative listing of metaphorically bland adjectives, ‘a crowd of ordinary, decent folk, watched from without and neither moved nor spoke’. Better, good blending of a few techniques there! Auden’s construction of humanity under totalitarian regimes is represented as an insipid and anaemic reality, with this sentiment being reified through the juxtaposition of The Iliad’s vigour and vitality, which depicted ‘men and women in a dance/moving their sweet limbs’. This juxtaposition of The Iliad’s liveliness against the bleak and dystopian reality portrayed by Auden aims to combat the nihilistic and dehumanising ontological sentiments perpetuated by totalitarian regimes while (Integrate Thesis). Again, your framework looks solid, can't comment too much without a Thesis (without a Thesis, you have no essay, after all). That said, you definitely need to ensure you are addressing 'representation' adequately in your analysis; you need more techniques throughout! No quote shouldn't have one

However, Auden’s imitation of the ballad form in O what is that sound maintains a certain historical anonymity to allow for a universal and timeless message to flourish, the fragility of human bonds when under the intrusion of state forces to exemplify (Integrate Thesis). Again, I caution you against such a rigid topic sentence that doesn't have a Thesis yet, if you get a strange question it might not work as well as you want it to. Be ready to adapt.  Auden initially creates this historical anonymity through his nebulous imagery while maintaining a sense of gender neutrality, ‘O what is that light I see flashing so clear … only the sun on their weapons dear’. Why is the gender neutrality significant? Creating this historically vague setting, Auden positions his poem to become timeless and amorphous, ensuring that he critiques the universal concept of state intrusion through construing the forces as ‘Scarlet Soldiers’, (Integrate Thesis). Good reference to being timeless across contexts, if the Thesis is integrated well that is an effective sentence. Auden then employs this historically hazy setting to depict the divorce-esque reaction from the concept of a state intrusion through his repetition of ‘deceiving’ in his rhetorical question, ‘O where are you going? Stay with me here! /Were the vows you swore deceiving, deceiving?’. Be careful not to become chronological with your analysis, no "Then Auden does this," it seems retell-isa, speak about the text from a very abstract perspective. Auden’s portrayal of the spouse violating their connubial vows due to the intrusion from the ‘scarlet soldiers’ intensifies his thesis regarding the fragility of human bonds when faced with the aspect of state intrusion, (Integrate Thesis). Again, you've already got a concept here, the fragility of the human condition. Blending something else could prove very difficult for you. Auden’s denouement follows the flight of one spouse, leaving the state’s ‘scarlet soldiers’ to violently and forcefully intrude upon the most private and sacred of human bastions, the household, as evidenced by Auden’s terrorising, yet vague imagery, ‘O it’s broken the lock and splintered the door … their boots are heavy on the floor/And their eyes are burning’. What does this show the audience? Your textual commentary is effective, but I'm looking for it to be brought full circle, what is the end result for us as an audience, what perspective do we gain? Characterising the state force as an ‘it’, Auden suggests that the ‘scarlet soldiers’ are dependent on the whims of the state, these whims creating the disjointed and discordant reality where lifelong bonds are necessitated to be broken to survive, (Integrate Thesis). Despite the historical anonymity, the contemporaneity of Auden’s message is targeted at European populations who are slowly but systematically being overtaken by fascist and populist militarism, (Integrate Thesis).  Another effective framework, though do watch that your analysis doesn't become too text focused and regularly link back to us as an audience. This is a representation essay, so you need to look at how techniques represent things, TO US!

Meanwhile, Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5 as a historiographical metafiction uses the postmodernist convention of defamiliarisation to distance the reader from their 1960’s context in the Vietnamese war by framing the novel within WWII to critique the masculinised nature of war in literature and perpetuated by President Lyndon Johnson. That sentence needs to be split, far too long without a pause. Vonnegut initially defamiliarises the reader to address masculinity in war through Mary’s ironic dichotomy when talking about Billy’s experiences in WWII, ‘You were just babies in the war … you’ll pretend you were men instead of babies … war will look wonderful’. Characterising the fighting men as ‘babies’, Vonnegut critiques the hubristic machismo attitudes towards war, then re-familiarises this concept to the reader, saying ‘she thought that wars were partly encouraged by books and movies’. Good. Vonnegut’s metafictive approach re-familiarises and contextualises the reader within their time, alluding to the current Vietnamese conquest while critiquing the pro-Vietnam war rhetoric perpetuated by President Johnson along with the encouragement of war in literature (Integrate Thesis). Vonnegut further questions the quixotically masculinised nature of war through his ironic metaphor ‘Foolish virgins … right at the end of childhood’. Vonnegut suggests that the ‘men’ in war are only ‘foolish virgins’ who are ultimately seduced into war by President Johnson’s extremely sexualised and bellicose rhetoric, as seen when Johnson talks of the bombing raids in Vietnam, saying ‘I’m going up her leg an inch at a time … I’ll get the snatch before they know what’s happening’. Slightly retell here, be careful not to slip into just retelling what happened in the text! Ultimately, Vonnegut’s epistemological scepticism aims to challenge the ontological ideals of masculinised warfare promoted by President Johnson and perpetuated throughout literature in Vonnegut’s 1960’s American context by defamiliarising the Vietnamese war, (Integrate Thesis). My primary comment here would simply be that the essay feels a little imbalanced. The ORT is brought in last and is the smallest paragraph, it feels like an afterthought. Try to increase the amount of analysis for your ORT, there should be a close to even balance between prescribed and ORT

Both Auden’s Shield of Achilles and O what is that sound along with Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5 critique their respective political concerns through idiosyncratic representation of these political agendas. When viewed as a whole, this corpus of texts all experiment with form and language to (Integrate Thesis).  Again, not much to say without a Thesis, be sure that the final product is a solid 3-4 sentences

This is definitely an effective framework Jimmy! There is not much I can say without a Thesis throughout, but in general:

- Mostly effective analysis, in some sections you neglect techniques and/or shift into retell, be careful that the focus remains on representation
- An imbalance exists between your ORT and Prescribed, try and balance them a little more (it should be as close to 50/50 as possible). You could do this by adding a fourth paragraph
- Only minor issues with expression, be sure to regularly read your essay aloud to listen for errors/ambiguities

Primarily, ensure that your framework doesn't restrict your ability to answer the question. Remember, your Thesis must be integrated throughout the whole essay, and your concepts clearly evident in all of your analysis. You've preselected quotes and effects for each paragraph, which will make it difficult to adapt to difficult questions/scenarios. Be prepared to make changes to this adaptable on the fly, and be prepared for them to be more substantial than just integrating a Thesis in key spots. You need to adapt your analysis to the concept, and your concept to the question, so be flexible   good work!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi guys! Would you mind giving me some feedback on a Module C essay due on Wednesday? It's a word limit of 1000-1200 and I'm at about 1300 (which I hope is okay lol) but my main concern is that it really stands out! Thanks so much! 

Hey Laura! Sure thing, comments in bold throughout as usual

Spoiler

Arthur Miller manipulates the representation of individuals to emphasise the impact of political motivation. Evaluate the extent to which this is true in your prescribed text and at least ONE text of your own choosing.

Arthur Miller and Julia Gillard extensively manipulate the representation of individuals to emphasise the impact of conflicting political motivations on the complexity of morality and truth. I'd like to see a more conceptual start to your essay, this feels like a 'second sentence.' What is the big idea you are pushing in your essay, without referencing the texts? Remember, the texts are JUST examples! The 1953 play The Crucible by Miller and Julia Gillard’s 2012 Misogyny Speech employ contrasting portrayals of individuals to suggest the friction created by diverse political perspectives. This 'friction' could form the basis of the first sentence Thesis I mentioned above. Miller explores this tension through a double context of the 1692 witch trials in the Puritan town of Salem, which allegorically represent his personal experience of communist “witch-hunting” led by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Gillard’s speech was conversely written in a time of political instability, and opposition between her ministerial authority and Tony Abbott’s Liberal party. Good context links for both texts, nice job integrating them in a fairly seamless manner. Nonetheless, the authors’ similar use of contrasting characterisation demonstrates the need for communities to recognise individuals voices to preserve a clear sense of morality. What is contrasting about these characterisations? That is the f --- Overall, an effective introduction, but I feel it is missing a bit of focus. What IS the impact of conflicting political perspectives? HOW is it created (you do this, just need a little more)? That's where the focus should be, right now the intro feels just a tad disjointed.

First, Miller extensively manipulates the representation of individuals to display their conflicting political motivations for preserving reputation. I like this, but take 'first,' out, the rationale being that you don't want this to turn into chronological analysis ("this, then this, then this"). In a Puritan society founded on personal righteousness, a faulty reputation could result in social and physical punishment. Miller presents Reverend Parris as attempting to uphold his position of power and control, when Abigail urges that “the rumour of witchcraft is all about; I think you'd best go down [to the congregation] and deny it yourself.” (p18) You don't need page numbers if you don't like (unless your teacher wants them). Further, technique for that quote? This emotive emphasis on “denial” suggests an underlying fear of alignment with those alienated from society, symbolised as “witches”. Thus, Parris retorts, “And what shall I say to them? That my daughter and niece I discovered dancing like heathen in the forest?” ( p19) Slipping into retell here, at no stage should you devote an entire sentence to recounting what a character said in the text with no other inclusions. Blend it with the next sentence )possibly trimming the quote in the process? Miller employs rhetorical questions to communicate a sense of uncertainty, portraying Parris as apprehensive to accept his family’s ostracisation as religious “heathens”. What effect does this have on the audience? What does it show us about the effects of conflicting political perspectives? Comparatively, the characterisation of Proctor conveys the affirmation of integrity and identity as his fundamental motivation for preserving reputation. This reflects Miller’s own experiences in the McCarthy era, in which employment and status were threatened by accusations from the House Un-American Activities Committee. Again, nice contextual links. Proctor hence declares that “God does not need my name nailed upon a Church!” (p124). Miller utilises an interjection to demonstrate Proctor’s passionate desire to uphold the identity symbolised by his “name”. The protagonist then explains, “How may I live without my name?” (p124) The repetition of “name” reinforces the importance Proctor places on his reputation, ultimately at the expense of his own life. This contrasting ideal creates inherent tension between individual political motivations in the play. My big comment on this paragraph would concern style and expression. You are devoting an entire sentence to recounting something from the text, and then the next saying okay, this was the technique, this was what it portrayed, etc. In that combo, the first sentence becomes almost completely irrelevant, because it is retell. Try trimming your quotes and ditching the plot details, and focusing more heavily on the representation and effect on the audience.

Gillard’s Misogyny Speech explores similarly conflicting motivations, however through contrasting desires to destroy reputation for political gain. I like this intro, it flows nicely from what came before and offers a nice comparison. With ongoing criticism in media due to controversial policies, Gillard reveals she had been harmfully characterised by Abbot who stated “Every day the Prime Minister stands in this Parliament will be… another day of shame for a government which should already have died of shame.” This repetition of “shame” emotively emphasises Abbot’s attempt to denigrate the public perception of Gillard’s leadership. Again, as a marker, you scare me when the technique follows the quote like that. For a split second I feel like you aren't going to analyse it; you can make your writing more succinct and more powerful by adding the technique in the same sentence as the quote, and perhaps even the effect as well. The composer further describes how “the Leader of the Opposition went outside in the front of Parliament and stood next to a sign that said ‘Ditch the witch.’” Similar to Miller’s play, the term “witch” is an symbol of societal exclusion and alienation. Good. Gillard also utilises imagery of Abbot’s stance to demonstrate his alignment with these derogatory perceptions of her character. However, the Minister counters this manipulation with a detrimental portrayal of Abbot’s reputation. Gillard utilises a diatribe format, declaring she had received “Misogyny, sexism, every day from this Leader of the Opposition.” The composer employs negative emotive language to clearly represent Abbot’s discriminatory and demeaning character. She also condemns his usage of sexism “as a battering ram against someone else.” Thus showing us ________. Remember, even though you are effectively linking technique to effect, this effect needs to link to the question and the Module. How does the technique represent the relationship between people and politics to US as an audience? This metaphorically depicts Abbot as potentially destructive, and further indicates his shaping of Gillard’s reputation was politically motivated. Due to the disrepute surrounding speaker Peter Slipper, this representation of Abbot’s character was a clear attempt to manipulate the media, supporting Gillard’s authority and distracting from her personal political dilemmas. Nonetheless, this reveals the continual conflicts created by individual political motivations in a community. An effective paragraph, but I think you could link to the question a little bit more, and further, link to the audience more. Representation essays demand that you address the impacts of that representation on the audience.

Miller and Gillard then extensively emphasise the impact of these motivations by demonstrating the complexity created for morality and truth. The Crucible displays the difficulty of determining individual morality in a society defined by communal perceptions of truth. Excellent. Proctor attempts to autonomously judge Parris’ character, declaring that “I see no light of God in that man. I’ll not conceal it.” Proctor clearly rejects Parris’ representation with the innate purity and righteousness Salem esteemed, as symbolised by “light”. What does this show about the impact of political motivation? However, Puritan society also demanded rigid adherence to strict moral codes, prohibiting individuals from questioning the heteronomy of the majority. This is manifest in Hale’s rebuke that “That is not for you to decide. The man’s ordained, therefore the light of God is in him.” (p63) The short syntax of the first sentence communicates the commanding and powerful position of authority, thus emphasising the dictation of symbolic “light” and morality. Again, some sentence blending would greatly benefit your expression. See below for an example. Miller then suggests this catalysed Proctor’s inability to determine his individual sense of truth. Retell. He laments, “Then who will judge me?… God in Heaven, who is John Proctor, what is John Proctor?” (p120) Miller uses rhetorical questioning to reflect the character’s feeling of lostness and uncertainty about the source of morality, in a community where autonomy was inherently removed. Thus showing us... Proctor’s cry allegorically represents Miller’s struggle during the McCarthy era, when he believed individual morality was removed by communal hysteria regarding the communist “red terror”. Good contextual link. This political perspective is revealed in Miller’s introduction that “the sin of public terror is that it divests man of conscience, or himself”. The composer thus reveals how these political motives can detrimentally impact individuals in their search for morality. Same concerns as above, definitely need more links to the question and you could tidy your expression a bit too!

Gillard’s Misogyny Speech then uses characterisation to reveal the impact of opposing motivations on the complexity of concealing or revealing truth. In an era of constant leadership vacillation and disillusionment with politicians, Gillard represents her opposition as inherently deceptive. She accuses his politically motivated accusations of “Peddling a standard for Mr Slipper he would not set for himself”, employing the metaphor of “peddling” to depict Abbot’s promotion of his reputation as fallacious communication of truth. Gillard also states her opposition is “Capable of double standards, but incapable of change. His double standards should not rule this Parliament.” This repetition of “double standards” emphasises her belief in Abbot’s misrepresentation of reality. I love your techniques here, but make sure to extend the consequences BEYOND the composer and context. Like, we as an audience don't care too much about Gillard v Abbott, we are interested in what we learn about conflicting political perspectives in general. Again, your text should only act as evidence to the greater idea, the idea isn't the text itself.  In contrast, Gillard manipulates her own characterisation to suggest she is searching for truth like Miller’s Proctor. She closes by declaring “And on that basis, because of the Leader of the Opposition's motivations, this Parliament today should reject this motion”. The emotive language of “rejecting” corruption emphasise Gillard’s intent to reveal a clear sense of morality, unpolluted by Abbot’s corrupted motivations for self-promotion. She also states a personal search for truth is necessary, declaring if Abbot “wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia… he needs a mirror.” The symbol of a “mirror” becomes an icon of the need for individual reflection to determine a clear sense of morality. The minister’s bias must also be considered, as Peter Hatcher suggests this contrasting representation of individuals aimed to impact public perceptions of the opposition in an era of uncertainty. (motives not impact?) Overall, the text exposes a clear tension between ideas of morality and truth due to the opposing political motives of individuals.

It is therefore evident that Arthur Miller and Julia Gillard extensively manipulate the representation of individuals to emphasise the impact of conflicting political motivations on the complexity of morality and truth. The 1953 play The Crucible by Miller and Julia Gillard’s 2012 Misogyny Speech employ contrasting portrayals of individuals to demonstrate the tension created by the diversity of political perspectives in a community. Overall, the texts clearly reveal the friction between individual and societal perceptions of morality that has existed throughout history and will continue to cause conflict in ages to come.

This is a cool essay Laura! Excellent textual references and techniques, great contextual links, and a balanced structure between your Prescribed and ORT texts. This is hard to do in Module C, so kudos for that especially, your balance is perfect!

I would have two main comments; first, ensure that you create and sustain a proper Thesis. The introduction is a little bit disjointed, I don't quite get the BIG idea that you are pushing. Remember, this idea should be separate from your texts, the texts are just an example. Have a play with wording and things to see if you can get a big idea to shine, and give it lots of attention not only in your intro, but throughout! This should help you link to the question more effectively too.

My second comment is on expression, specifically, blending quotes and techniques into one sentence. Let me give you an example:

Your version:

This is manifest in Hale’s rebuke that “That is not for you to decide. The man’s ordained, therefore the light of God is in him.” (p63) The short syntax of the first sentence communicates the commanding and powerful position of authority, thus emphasising the dictation of symbolic “light” and morality.

By mixing the order, you can blend this in a single sentence:

The short syntax of, "That is not for you to decide," communicates the commanding and powerful position of authority, thus emphasising the dictation of symbolic "light" and morality.

Identical statements, mixing the order makes it more succinct and more powerful. Try these sorts of modifications if you feel comfortable!

All that said, great work! I really like this essay, it has a lot going for it and I bet it will do really well

[Lauradf36]

Thanks so much for your feedback, I really appreciate it!
With blending quotes and techniques, would you still state the quote or just use it integrated?

[jamonwindeyer]

Thanks so much for your feedback, I really appreciate it!
With blending quotes and techniques, would you still state the quote or just use it integrated?

No worries! I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but I believe "integrated" would be my answer, happy to clarify if you could give me an example of what you mean by each?

[Lauradf36]

No worries! I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but I believe "integrated" would be my answer, happy to clarify if you could give me an example of what you mean by each?

Oh yeah soz - I mean stating the quote & then also analysing “That is not for you to decide. The man’s ordained, therefore the light of God is in him.” (p63) The short syntax of, "That is not for you to decide," communicates the commanding and powerful position of authority, thus emphasising the dictation of symbolic "light" and morality.
Or just analysing within - The short syntax of, "That is not for you to decide," communicates the commanding and powerful position of authority, thus emphasising the dictation of symbolic "light" and morality.
So basically stating the quote once or twice if that makes any more sense...

[jamonwindeyer]

Oh yeah soz - I mean stating the quote & then also analysing “That is not for you to decide. The man’s ordained, therefore the light of God is in him.” (p63) The short syntax of, "That is not for you to decide," communicates the commanding and powerful position of authority, thus emphasising the dictation of symbolic "light" and morality.
Or just analysing within - The short syntax of, "That is not for you to decide," communicates the commanding and powerful position of authority, thus emphasising the dictation of symbolic "light" and morality.
So basically stating the quote once or twice if that makes any more sense...

Oh I'm with you! Definitely the second one, or at least that is much more my style, it flows much better in my opinion and definitely saves you lots of words (if you need to cut, there is an easy way!)

[christie2584]

Module A
The intertextual connections between Mrs Dalloway and The Hours heighten our understanding of the ways the texts communicate experiences of joy and despair.
Evaluate this statement with detailed reference to both your prescribed texts.

In the comparative study of Virginia Woolf's modernist novel "Mrs. Dalloway" (1925) and Stephen Daldry's post-modern film "The Hours" (2002), the universal human experiences are demonstrated, allowing a heightened understanding of joy and despair. Both texts work intertexually to shape our perception of human experiences and our own outlook on life.

In her post World War One era, Woolf recognised the trauma and horrors of war. She saw the world's bleaker outlook on life and realised its transience and death was "inevitable". This despair is communicated by the stream of consciousness in Clarissa's mind, "Did it matter the? Did it matter that she must inevitably cease completely?". These successive rhetorical questions prods the reader's thought and also highlight the futility of human  life. Being a suffering of depression and bipolar disorder, Woolf was very attuned to the concern of mental illness. She allowed the readers to delve into Septimus' interior world, as "the world" became "standstill". Her clever manipulation of rhythm pauses the pace of the novel, allowing her reader to reflect and understand the post traumatic stress of returning soldiers. This is furthered by Woolf's personification, "The world has raised its whip, where shall it descend?", showing strong notions of fear, paranoia and anxiety. Woolf also advocates for feminist concerns,  by conveying female suffering in Rezia's silent outcry "Help! Help!". She furthers this in "It was she who suffered, but she had no one to tell". This notion of suffering and inner turmoil is revealed as Woolf explores the "external suffering and that eternal loneliness", thus reflecting and responding to the despair of her war-torn world.

Similarly, Daldry reflects the issue of his won world through the interactions of Clarissa and Richard. Using mise-en-scene in an over-the-shoulder shot, the audience can identify the AIDS magnets on Richard's fridge. This connects strongly with Daldry's context, showing the AIDS endemic of his time and also the stigma associated with it. In the establishing shot of Richard's bleak grid-like complex, Daldry symbolically shows how society has compartmentalised Richard, ostracising him due to this illness. The bleak blue interiors also act as a reflection of Richard's ouwn perspective of life as he morbidly asks Clarissa "Would you be angry if I died?". Not only does Daldry connect with his contemporary world, but he also parallels the lives of the three women in parallel cuts of them in bed as their respective partners leave home. In this, Daldry creates the notion of a universal suffering woman and extends Woolf's feminist concerns to a modern and post modern context. His use of jaundice hues gives Laura's kitchen a stifling atmosphere, evoking a strong sense of restraint and claustrophobia. The repeated orchestral motif in the non-diejetic music creates an eerie, restless atmosphere further highlighting Laura's confinement. Daldry uses the bird in Virginia's garden as a symbol for the transience of life and that despite the lushness and fertility of the garden, life was inevitably "cease". Thus Daldry reflects his own world and also trhe worlds of others as he demonstrates the despair and hopelessness across the three contexts.

Despite this bleak morbidity, Woolf encourages her audience to find fulfillment, independence and joy. She expresses her love for life through Clarissa, who despite the war and disrupted world, she sought to give a party to "kindle and illuminate". This light image conveys a sense of hope, almost reviving the vitality of life that existed before the war. She also conveys Clarissa who despite the social pressures placed on women, embraced her role as a "perfect hostess" and used her "gift" to bring her fragmented society together. The notion of life and vibrancy is exclaimed in "Her parties! It was her parties!". This sense of epiphany and excitement brings life and joy to Woolf's desolate world. Woolf also uses Clarissa's daughter Elizabeth as a representation for a new woman, inviting her female audience towards independence and self-fulfillment. Elizabeth is portrayed as "she did not care a straw for either of them" showing Woolf's rejection of female stereotypes but instead her embrace for feminism and female empowerment. This is more strongly conveyed as Elizabeth travels the streets of London by herself, revealing the independence and desire for self-fulfillment. Thus Woolf urges her audience, in particular her female readers, to rise from this desolate world and forge a path for independence, joy and self-fulfillment.

Daldry echoes Woolf's novel in the parties which the three women held. Richard's dialogue in "Oh Mrs Dalloway, always giving parties to cover up the silence", shows an explicit reference to Woolf's novel and shows how likewise Clarissa Vaughn is embracing her role and using her "gift". The long shot of Clarissa striding purposefully to the florist conveys the notion of an independent woman. Daldry thus urges his female audience towards such feminist values. Flowers are also explicit links to the novel. Though they can represent life's fleetingness, Daldry shows in Clarissa's appreciation of the flowers, that they can in fact be symbols for life and its vitality. Daldry's close up shot of Virginia's feet as she walked into the water can be paralleled later by a close up shot of Laura's walking feet in the hotel. Daldry's manipulation in camera work emphasises the women's determination, showing their conscious decision to break away from social expectations but instead forge their won paths. This is further supported in Laura's dialogue, "It was death. I chose life" which echoes Virginia's outburst at the train station "If i were to choose between Richmond and death. I choose death." These two dialogues convey the women's self-autonomy, reflecting Woolf's desire for female independence. Daldry closes the film with a midshot of Clarissa smiling, using the soft lighting to create a sense of contentment and fulfillment.

Both texts therefore, work together intertexually to reflect the joys and despair of human expediences. Both composers draw from the personal and wider world to present to the audience the complexities of the interior mind and the individual struggle to attain joy despite being in a world of despair.


Teacher's comment: 18/20 A succinct piece which attempts to address the question and shapes material effectively to do so. Film techniques are present - pleasing. Perhaps evaluate a little more. Apt examples for essay.

Thankyou for having a look at this!

[ssarahj]

Module A
The intertextual connections between Mrs Dalloway and The Hours heighten our understanding of the ways the texts communicate experiences of joy and despair.
Evaluate this statement with detailed reference to both your prescribed texts.

Hey christie2584, welcome to the forums! We would love to give you feedback on your essay however there's an ATAR Notes policy that requires 15 posts per essay marked. So hang around the forums and let us know when you've reach that 15 post mark  You may even like to start with your first post here: Make Your First Post! !   

[Lauradf36]

In the comparative study of Virginia Woolf's modernist novel "Mrs. Dalloway" (1925) and Stephen Daldry's post-modern film "The Hours" (2002), the universal human experiences are demonstrated, allowing a heightened understanding of joy and despair. Both texts work intertexually to shape our perception of human experiences and our own outlook on life.

just for the fun of it, here are my thoughts (definitely not gospel) -
I personally think a longer introduction & conclusion might benefit you here. You might want to briefly outline the context of both texts & elaborate on your key ideas. That could be just personal preference though
Also you might want to elaborate on the phrase "issue of a won world"? Not sure if this is a spelling mistake or what but it's not super clear
I would agree with your teacher's comment. Sometimes more evaluation can be as easy as adding an extra sentence after a quote - an extra technique or clear link to context, an elaboration on the depth of ideas presented etc.
Overall this is pretty awesome though, I love getting to read everyone else's essays, hee hee! we're doing Gatsby & Sonnets for this module, so similar idea but very different themes

[Sssssrr]

Hey guys,
I was wondering if you could have a look at my Module B essay on speeches it would be much appreciated
Thanks, sam