English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only)

[jakesilove]

Hi! This is my module B essay for speeches
Okay so I wrote this right, and the teacher said it was catastrophic, she told me to rewrite it, so i did and she said it was still convoluted like she said my textual evidence was there but it was convoluted? I have no idea what that means and she told me to rewrite it or just pick another essay question to do
I dont have the heart to do another question, these essays drain my life force from me, so idk can you guys please mark it and tell me what my problem is?because i have no clue  what it is , Thanks in advance

Hey! Check out my comments below

Original

Spoiler

2010: The speeches set for study continue to engage readers through its rhetorical treatment of human aspirations and beliefs.” In light of your critical study does this statement resonate with your own interpretation of these speeches
Mankind’s desire to strive for advancement and take action on their beliefs, results in the emergence of individuals to communicate these sentiments through a vocal medium. Consequently, Aristotelian appeals  to the audiences pathos and ethos cause listeners to engage with the speaker. The persuasion of audiences to explore and understand human aspirations and beliefs is reflected in Doris Lessing’s On not winning the Nobel Prize, Margaret Atwood’s Spotty-Handed Villainesses and Noel Pearson’s An Australian history for us all.

Despite living in poverty, individuals who  improve their circumstances and through their determination, pursue literature hope to attain this through education. This is illustrated in Doris Lessing’s On not winning the Nobel Prize, which engages listeners by deftly evoking pathos within them as she the struggles for children in Zimbabwe, to satiate their “hunger of books,” as a result of having a rather minimal exposure to them. The children’s determination to obtain literature is exemplified in the irony of “They taught us to read but we have no books.” The ironic statement signifies the metaphor of the children being “a goat trying to find sustenance in some aged grass,” thus highlighting the perseverance of these individuals to attain their aspiration of education despite no resources. By integrating Monroe’s visualisation of the “dream of possibilities,” the Zimbabwean’s have, “great hunger for education in Africa,” Lessing integrates Campbell’s utilisation of appeals to arouse emotion  including guilt, as audiences reflect and reevaluate the privileged lifestyle taken for granted. Lessing, reinforces to her audience the current generation’s complacency through the juxtaposition of the children in Zimbabwe “begging for books” and the children in London who “never read at all, and the library is only half used.” Thus, Lessing  calls listener’s to action concerning education and its value for those in impoverished nations Conclusively, Lessing’s rhetorical treatment of the aspirations and beliefs for a better future by gaining knowledge, transcends time engaging audiences to reflect the value of education and be appreciative

Conversely, Atwood’s Spotty-Handed Villainesses, despite utilising a different rhetorical approach and core message, there are similar beliefs and aspirations. Atwood does not initiate  a call to action by her audience but rather be persuaded of the need for equal representation of women in literature. Her intertextual reference to “Ophelia and Lady Macbeth,” the epitome of good and evil respectively, validates her argument on the paradoxical “angel/whore split” in literature. Hence, the overarching one dimensional portrayal of females, is Atwood’s discourse focus and   the recognition of the multi-faceted nature of women. Atwood’s aspiration to have more multivariate women in text is shown through  repetition and the motif of “spotty.”  This establishes universal ethos in her recognition of the reality that women are layered individuals with flaws. Contrastingly, whilst Atwood aims to convey her belief and aspiration for global female equality in literature, Lessing’s western aspiration is for the appreciation for knowledge is limited. Moreover, Atwood’s integration of Cicero’s idea of leaving the audience with a lasting impression, is reflected in her conclusion of a testimony from Dame Rebecca West, of “Ladies of Great Britain…we have not enough evil in us,” detailing the limitation on female expression that misrepresentation in literature has caused. Thus, Atwood implores audiences and writers to embrace which explore these aspects and develop their characters wholly, rather than simply focusing on overused archetypes. Similarly, the artistic and intellectual qualities of Lessing’s address is able to engage her audience, to explore the multifaceted value of education through her inclusion of the contrasting lifestyles and aspirations of the children in Africa and children in the west. Therefore, both speeches implore audiences to go further than to accept things at face value, to fully examine the various facets either education or women have to offer. Thus, Atwood’s Spotty-Handed Villainesses, elucidates through the rhetorical treatment, her aspiration and beliefs to transform the representation of women in literature.

 Additionally, the engagement of audiences through the rhetorical treatment of the prevailing problems in a society, encourages individuals to develop discourses to recognise these issues. Pearson’s An Australian history for us all, details his aspiration for the non-indigenous Australian’s to acknowledge the controversial issue of Indigenous Australia’s past and move towards reconciliation. Presented as a response to John Howard’s accusation that historians were creating a “black armband” view of Australian history, placing unnecessary guilt on Australians.  Pearson’s address acts as a to engage the Australian community, to his belief of the recognition of Aboriginal issues. Similarly, both Atwood and Lessing’s speeches aspire for individuals to have an increased recognition of their respective feminist and educational perspectives. Pearson’s discourse integrates Monroe’s visualisation of Australia’s “racist, bigoted past,” to highlight the need for acknowledgement of European settler’s actions in Australia. By highlighting the past injustices committed in the repetition of “you” and emotive language in “you have taken our land”, pathos is evoked within the non-indigenous audience. The second person language forces reflection on past wrongs almost personally. Likewise, Lessing also evokes pathos within her audience by describing the conditions and hardships of the children in Zimbabwe as they aspire to learn, thus causing her audience, like Pearson’s to re-evaluate their existing perspectives. Furthermore, Pearson’s extended metaphor in “Will you by your apathy tacitly admit that you don’t care and thus assume the guilt of your father’s?” spurs the audience to take action and concur with Pearson’s thesis to acknowledging the past and take corrective action to repair the damaged relationship. The rhetorical question challenges listener’s pre-existing beliefs of the “hot button issue” of Australia’s alleged “black armband view of history,” to engage with Pearson’s aspiration for recognition of Australia’s Indigenous past and preventing the politicisation of Aboriginal issues. Atwood, similarly confronts her audience in her conclusion “Ladies of Great Britain…we have not enough evil in us,” challenging her listeners like Pearson, to take action on the misrepresentation of women and follow through on her belief of equality in literature. Similar to Atwood’s and Pearson’s engagement of their audiences through questioning pre-conceived notions, Lessing also challenges her audience to re-evaluate their value for education, and engage in her belief for appreciation of education. Conclusively, through Pearson’s artistic and intellectual integration through his speech, verifying his aspiration and beliefs for the recognition of Australia’s past, Pearson is able to successfully engages listeners.

Ultimately, the employment of Aristotelian Appeals and the theories of rhetoric skillfully used in Doris Lessing’s On not winning the Nobel Prize, Margaret Atwood’s Spotty-Handed Villainesses and Noel Pearson’s An Australian history for us all, successfully engage the audience to empathise and be persuaded by the speaker’s aspirations and beliefs in their respective addresses.

With comments

Spoiler

2010: The speeches set for study continue to engage readers through its rhetorical treatment of human aspirations and beliefs.” In light of your critical study does this statement resonate with your own interpretation of these speeches

Mankind’s desire to strive for advancement and take action on their beliefs, results in the emergence of individuals to communicate these sentiments through a vocal medium. Great introductory line! Consequently, Aristotelian appeals to the audience's make sure to always include apostrophe's here! pathos and ethos cause listeners to engage with the speaker. The persuasion of audiences to explore and understand human aspirations and beliefs is reflected in Doris Lessing’s On not winning the Nobel Prize, Margaret Atwood’s Spotty-Handed Villainesses and Noel Pearson’s An Australian history for us all. In your introduction, you need to go into a little bit more depth regarding each of the texts. Even just a few words on each, stating their context, purpose, result, etc. etc. You just need to actually INTRODUCE the text, rather than just state it's name. Also, I'm not sure how it works for speeches, but I think you need to underline their names! Great intro overall.

Despite living in poverty, individuals who  improve their circumstances and through their determination, pursue literature hope to attain this through education. This sentence is definitely more complicated than it needs to be. I get what you're saying; those who struggle in society, and find themselves drawn to literature, realise the importance of education. Maybe clear it up a little! This is illustrated in Doris Lessing’s On not winning the Nobel Prize, which engages listeners by deftly evoking pathos within them as she the struggles for children in Zimbabwe, to satiate their “hunger of books,” as a result of having a rather minimal exposure to them. Analyse this "Hunger"; obviously it is a metaphor, but it's a very good one, given your introductory sentence to this paragraph. Never leave a quote unanalysed! The children’s determination to obtain literature is exemplified in the irony of “They taught us to read but we have no books.” The ironic statement signifies the metaphor of the children being “a goat trying to find sustenance in some aged grass,” thus highlighting the perseverance of these individuals to attain their aspiration of education despite no resources. By integrating Monroe’s visualisation of the “dream of possibilities,” the Zimbabwean’s have, “great hunger for education in Africa,” Reread this sentence, and figure out if you can clean it up a bit (Also, add a full stop etc.). I think you need to make absolutely clear what you are trying to say, before you say this. It’s a great essay so far, and your analysis is on point. However, I think your thesis could come out stronger. Write your thesis down, in one or two sentences. Then, go through the essay and make SURE to always be linking your argument BACK to the thesis. Lessing integrates Campbell’s utilisation of appeals to arouse emotion  including guilt, as audiences reflect and reevaluate the privileged lifestyle taken for granted. Lessing, reinforces to her audience the current generation’s complacency through the juxtaposition of the children in Zimbabwe “begging for books” and the children in London who “never read at all, and the library is only half used.” Thus, Lessing  calls listener’s to action concerning education and its value for those in impoverished nations Conclusively, Lessing’s rhetorical treatment of the aspirations and beliefs for a better future by gaining knowledge, transcends time engaging audiences to reflect the value of education and be appreciative. I definitely don’t feel like the thesis comes out strongly in the second half of this paragraph. You appear to be comparing texts, and that’s great, but you’re doing it without a point in mind. Just stating similarities isn’t enough; WHY does it matter that they evoke similar themes? Does it say something about our underlying humanity (clue: yes). Also, try to find a difference between the texts, even if you only use that in a sentence. Anyone can find similarities; it takes a great essay to identify differences.

Conversely, Atwood’s Spotty-Handed Villainesses, despite utilising a different rhetorical approach and core message, there are similar beliefs and aspirations. This isn’t ‘conversely’, this is ‘similarly’ Atwood does not initiate a call to action by her audience but rather be persuaded of the need for equal representation of women in literature. Her intertextual reference to “Ophelia and Lady Macbeth,” the epitome of good and evil respectively, Potentially add some nuance here; they aren’t really the epitome of anything, but complex characters in and of themselves. Still, I like the sentence. validates her argument on the paradoxical “angel/whore split” in literature. Hence, the overarching one dimensional portrayal of females, is Atwood’s discourse focus and   the recognition of the multi-faceted nature of women. Atwood’s aspiration to have more multivariate women in text is shown through  repetition and the motif of “spotty.”  This establishes universal ethos in her recognition of the reality that women are layered individuals with flaws. I like your analysis, despite whatever your teacher has said. I would say it is all quite disjointed, though, because I don’t know what you’re trying to PROVE to me. At the moment, you’re just analysing the texts individually, but there must be a REASON you chose the texts, a REASON you chose the quotes. Again, spend some time uncovering your thesis! Contrastingly, whilst Atwood aims to convey her belief and aspiration for global female equality in literature, Lessing’s western aspiration is for the appreciation for knowledge is limited. Moreover, Atwood’s integration of Cicero’s idea of leaving the audience with a lasting impression, is reflected in her conclusion of a testimony from Dame Rebecca West, of “Ladies of Great Britain…we have not enough evil in us,” detailing the limitation on female expression that misrepresentation in literature has caused. Thus, Atwood implores audiences and writers to embrace which explore these aspects and develop their characters wholly, rather than simply focusing on overused archetypes. Read this sentence out loud; it doesn’t quite make sense. Similarly, the artistic and intellectual qualities of Lessing’s address is able to engage her audience, to explore the multifaceted value of education through her inclusion of the contrasting lifestyles and aspirations of the children in Africa and children in the west. Therefore, both speeches implore audiences to go further than to accept things at face value, to fully examine the various facets either education or women have to offer. Thus, Atwood’s Spotty-Handed Villainesses, elucidates through the rhetorical treatment, her aspiration and beliefs to transform the representation of women in literature. The end of this paragraph seems to have finally explained what all this analysis is about, which is great! Just scatter thesis statements like this around the entire thing 

Additionally, the engagement of audiences through the rhetorical treatment of the prevailing problems in a society, encourages individuals to develop discourses to recognise these issues. Pearson’s An Australian history for us all, details his aspiration for the non-indigenous Australian’s to acknowledge the controversial issue of Indigenous Australia’s past and move towards reconciliation. Presented as a response to John Howard’s accusation that historians were creating a “black armband” view of Australian history, placing unnecessary guilt on Australians.  This sentence starts, but doesn’t end! Pearson’s address acts as a to engage the Australian community, to his belief of the recognition of Aboriginal issues. Similarly, both Atwood and Lessing’s speeches aspire for individuals to have an increased recognition of their respective feminist and educational perspectives. Pearson’s discourse integrates Monroe’s visualisation of Australia’s “racist, bigoted past,” to highlight the need for acknowledgement of European settler’s actions in Australia. By highlighting the past injustices committed in the repetition of “you” and emotive language in “you have taken our land”, pathos is evoked within the non-indigenous audience. The second person language forces reflection on past wrongs almost personally. Go into a bit more depth in analysing these quoets Likewise, Lessing also evokes pathos within her audience by describing the conditions and hardships of the children in Zimbabwe as they aspire to learn, thus causing her audience, like Pearson’s to re-evaluate their existing perspectives. Furthermore, Pearson’s extended metaphor in “Will you by your apathy tacitly admit that you don’t care and thus assume the guilt of your father’s?” spurs the audience to take action and concur with Pearson’s thesis to acknowledging the past and take corrective action to repair the damaged relationship. The rhetorical question challenges listener’s pre-existing beliefs of the “hot button issue” of Australia’s alleged “black armband view of history,” to engage with Pearson’s aspiration for recognition of Australia’s Indigenous past and preventing the politicisation of Aboriginal issues. Atwood, similarly confronts her audience in her conclusion “Ladies of Great Britain…we have not enough evil in us,” challenging her listeners like Pearson, to take action on the misrepresentation of women and follow through on her belief of equality in literature. Similar to Atwood’s and Pearson’s engagement of their audiences through questioning pre-conceived notions, Lessing also challenges her audience to re-evaluate their value for education, and engage in her belief for appreciation of education. Conclusively, through Pearson’s artistic and intellectual integration through his speech, verifying his aspiration and beliefs for the recognition of Australia’s past, Pearson is able to successfully engages listeners.

Ultimately, the employment of Aristotelian Appeals and the theories of rhetoric skillfully used in Doris Lessing’s On not winning the Nobel Prize, Margaret Atwood’s Spotty-Handed Villainesses and Noel Pearson’s An Australian history for us all, successfully engage the audience to empathise and be persuaded by the speaker’s aspirations and beliefs in their respective addresses.

Great analysis of quotes, and great unification of themes between texts. Basically, I would focus on a couple of things if I were you. Firstly, decide on your thesis and make sure commentary goes to your thesis every single paragraph, every single analysis, every single time. Secondly, read your sentences out loud; pause whenever there is a comma. I think some of the sentences don’t flow like you expect them to. Third, try to increase the comparison between texts. Rather than just do a bulk of the work on one text, then compare the others in a sentence or two, try to weave comparison throughout the text. Overall, a great response; good luck in these final stages! You’re almost there 

Spoiler

[BPunjabi]

Hey Guys;

Module A please. I find this the most difficult out of the three as I find the concept of leadership with political views a bit struggling, but here it goes. Thanks so much btw.

Does the treatment of personal morality in Julius Caesar and The Prince reveal similarities or reinforce the text's’ distinctive qualities?

Morals are distinctive qualities which every human possess, but how they choose to act upon it builds up and forms their character. Dramatic play, ‘Julius Caesar’ conveys this imposed idea of morals by forging the historical concept of the Roman monarch Julius Caesar with Shakespeare's political context, while focusing on a goodwill vs hatred and free will vs fortune approach. In comparison, political treatise ‘The Prince’ incorporates historical events aswell to evidently support the concepts put forward to running a perfect kingdom. As both texts use historical references to compare qualities exposed in righteous characters,

‘Julius Caesar’ is a dramatic play, written by William Shakespeare in 1599 depicting the historical monarch Julius Caesar whose life is influenced by the playwright’s, Elizabethan era political context. Shakespeare attempts to communicate to the audience his dilemmas with the ruling government which is implemented into the plays four main characters and the machiavellian choices they adopt. These four main characters are Antony, Brutus, Julius Caesar and Cassius who have opposing ideals of morality and good will vs hatred. Throughout the play, the evident power struggle between good and evil persists which reinforces ideas of morality and more importantly persuasion. In Antony's funeral speech (page 745), it is noticeable how Antony contains the qualities to seduce the fickle plebs in seeing the horror and mutiny behind Brutus’ act of murdering Caesar. The repetition of “Brutus was an honourable man” manipulates the situation relating to Shakespeare wanting to seduce his crowd into choosing a side within the play and their problems with the Queen. From this scene it is evident that Shakespeare attempts to beguile the crowd into realising the problems with the infamous Queen Elizabeth and how it could dramatically place England into turmoil if she suddenly dies without a heir.

In comparison is Niccolo Machiavelli's political treatise ‘The Prince’ written in 1509 for his lord, Lorenzo De Medici. During the composition of the Prince, Italy was in a turmoil state as Italian leaders were being assassinated and quickly replaced, similar to the concept presented in Shakespeare's play. Machiavelli himself was a political associate who had a strong relationship with the past governor of Italy though it broke after the new leader took back the reign and exiled Machiavelli. ‘The Prince’ specifically is a guideline contrasting the perfect handbook to running a kingdom. It seems that Machiavelli totally disregards morals if it means becoming the ideal ruler.  Machiavelli believes that if a leader has the power to gain people's goodwill, then that ruler has no reason to fear hatred and conspiracies.I Goodwill is a political instrument which can insure stability of a Prince's reign, presented in the metaphor in “Better to have a name for miserliness, which breeds disgrace without hatred, than, in pursuing a name for liberality.  The idea of breeding disgrace connects to Machiavelli's belief that Hatred will cause a civilization to worship and attempt to not disappoint the ruler as the goodwill with present a lenient affect. Medici had proven to have used this quality as he was feared by most of the Italian populace as his family was known for their brutal carnage.

The treatment of morals have various consequences which can heavily affect a society depending on how people use it. This concept is explored in both ‘Julius Caesar’ and ‘The Prince’ though they both hold opposing views on the idea of freewill vs fortune. From Shakespeare's various plays, it is evident that he supported fate in saying that it cannot be controlled but rather an enigma which is part of everybody's life. He would have had faith that England would rise up and surpass distress after the Queen's death. In ‘Julius Caesar’ Cassius expresses to Brutus using figurative language that “The fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, But in ourselves that we are underlings” (Act 1 Scene 2). In this scene, Cassius uses machiavellian manipulation to seduce Brutus into murdering Caesar, which is a sly act though may result in a good conclusion for all republicans.

From ‘The Prince’, it is gathered that Machiavelli believed that Free Will can conquer fortune as it is a person's ability and use of morals which can exceed enemies expectations to winning and controlling a populace. Machiavelli believes that free will should be controlled as free will of the masses brought most of the empires to fall. Personification in “for fortune is a woman and in order to be mastered she must be jogged and beaten” (chapter 25) uses hyperbole to express the eager and importance of how fortune must be dominated so free will can be achieved. As of analysing ‘The Prince’, it is noticeable how Machiavelli was using his sense of Free Will to seduce Medici into restoring his political role.

The use of morals derive from specific ethical qualities which produce certain types of characteristics for various personas. Through play ‘Julius Caesar’, Shakespeare uses the historical context of Caesar to possess the mind of his audience in realising complications arising from the threat of Queen Elizabeth. In comparison ‘the Prince’ highlights Machiavelli's ideas on free will vs fortune and how he believes it can sustain a kingdom in which he absolutely disregards morals.

[jakesilove]

Hi! I'd appreciate it heaps if someone could read over my Mod B essay. Firstly, I realise that my essay is about twice the length it should be (sorry!), but I wouldn't write all four paragraphs in an exam - I'd choose the ones most suited to the question (even still, the paragraphs are way too long, but I have so much to say for each point and don't know what to cut out!) Also, I'm generally ok at English and getting my points across clearly, but with this essay I had some real trouble so I'm not sure if it's the clearest essay ever (but also I wrote a generic essay, not according to a specific question, so that might help)... Anyway, I'd really appreciate any feedback you could give!

Spoiler

Disillusioned by conflicting Renaissance and Medieval worlds, Hamlet seeks control through developing a distinct personal identity. Unable to resolve the disparity between these value systems, Hamlet experiences internal conflict as he searches for answers to universal questions of fate, morality, corruption, revenge and duty. By subverting traditional tragic forms such as the revenge tragedy, Shakespeare demonstrates how the universal and seemingly irreconcilable values of duty and morality lead to Hamlet’s immense metaphysical anguish, inhibiting the deterministic action Hamlet strives for. While this internal conflict reflects the religious and moral upheaval of Elizabethan society at the turn of the 17th century, play’s textual integrity is evident as the universal values addressed continue to resound within contemporary audiences.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity are clouded by conflicting Renaissance notions of morality and humanism, versus Medieval notions of duty and revenge, in avenging his father’s death. From the outset of the play, there is dramatic tension between ‘action’ and ‘inaction’, shown primarily between the ideological clash between the Protestant values of Wittenberg and the Catholic values of Denmark in determining whether his father’s ghost “brings airs from heaven or blasts from hell” (Catholic belief in purgatory, versus Protestant disbelief). Through the use of antithesis, Hamlet’s conflicting values of filial duty and God’s divine justice are thrown into light, as Hamlet’s moral framework intercedes his dutiful taking of revenge, which would forsake Christian morality. In this scene, broken metre rather than iambic pentameter is used in, for example, “O horrible, o horrible, most horrible” to convey Hamlet’s distress and turmoil. Hamlet’s words are conflicted by nonsensical binary opposites, such as taking revenge “with wings as swift as meditation”, revealing his internal conflict between taking impassioned revenge and rational action. This is further seen in Hamlet’s second soliloquy, in which Hamlet procrastinates taking or even thinking about action through tautological repetition of “Remember me!”, and by mourning his own circumstances in which he must “couple hell” and “grow not instant old”, before he resolves to take revenge upon Claudius. Just two scenes later, however, Hamlet repudiates this resolve, instead deciding to act in the manner of a rational Renaissance man, stating, “I’ll have grounds more relative than this”, and thus remaining “unpregnant” of his cause. In this way, Hamlet’s introspective nature defies traditional revenge tragedy expectations, as is highlighted through the use of dramatic foil. Laertes, whose rash nature and definitive Medieval values align with those of a traditional revenge hero. This is further reinforced in Hamlet’s soliloquy after the Mousetrap, in which the setting of midnight and the imagery of “drinking hot blood” suggests that unnatural acts will take place, leading the audience to expect Hamlet to finally take revenge. However, unlike Laertes who vows to “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i’th’church”, Hamlet does not kill Claudius, who he believes is praying and so will “send to heaven”, and instead talks with his mother. Thus, Hamlet’s conflicting values of duty and morality create an internal conflict, as his Renaissance moral code prevents him from taking blind Medieval revenge. It is not until he resolves these conflicts at the end of the play that he can find peace and gain control over his life.

Disillusioned by his corrupted world, and idolising Horatio as an autonomous and rational “man  that is not passion’s slave”, Hamlet is driven to regain reason and control of his circumstances through forging a distinct identity from the Court through defying social conventions. He attempts empowerment from the beginning of the play, through distinguishing himself by defying social conventions. He insists on wearing his “inky cloak” of mourning which stands out from the crowd, and makes use of wit and wordplay to inject his words with hidden meanings, with one of his opening lines, “aye madam, it is common”, being a pun and implying what he believes are Gertrude’s loose sexual morals. Hamlet’s short, staccato syllables and witty remarks strike discord with the steady rhythm and melodious tone of Claudius’ blank verse, and his puns parody Claudius’ verbose and superficial language, riddled with incompatible binaries such as “mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage” which allude to Claudius’ hypocrisy. In this way, Hamlet attempts to empower himself over his corrupt surroundings, with his distinctive characterisation effectively thwarting Claudius’ attempts at control. Through the accumulation of images, “'Tis not alone my inky cloak, … / Nor windy suspiration of forced breath, / Nor the fruitful river in the eye … That can denote me truly. / For they are actions that a man might play”, Hamlet reveals his complex understanding of the power of acting, and appearance versus reality. Thus, true to the conventions of a revenge tragedy, Hamlet puts on an “antic disposition” persuade those in the Court that he is a ‘harmless madman’, differentiated by his odd clothes and cryptic speech, in attempts to gain autonomy and control as he can defy social conventions and speak his true thoughts. However, despite this new resolve, Hamlet fails to gain the control, reason and legitimate sense of identity he strives for. This comes to a climax in his Act 2 soliloquy, in which his exclamation “oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I” reveals his intense internal struggle. Hamlet juxtaposes his own inability to take control and enact revenge with the ease of expression of the actor in conveying his character’s father’s death. His changes in tone, from peaks of rage, “O bloody, bawdy villain”, to profound depression, “I, a dull and muddy-mettled rascal”, to introspection, “who does me this”, show that despite his best efforts, Hamlet has not found identity and control in taking autonomy from fate.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity is clouded as he attempts to uphold a high moral code in a corrupted world. This preoccupation with morality spans the duration of the play, with Hamlet himself betraying his own Renaissance value system in moments of passionate action. Due to his context in Medieval Denmark of puritan Catholicism, Hamlet idolises the perceived moral purity of the female characters in the play, Ophelia and Gertrude; with Ophelia being characterised by Hamlet as “the celestial, the most beautified” manifestation of purity, and Gertrude, before Hamlet senior’s death, being “like Niobe – all tears”. Thus, after Gertrude’s speedy marriage and “incestuous desire” with Claudius, Hamlet begins to distrust everyone, especially women. He sees Ophelia’s ‘betrayal’ of Hamlet to Polonius in returning his “remembrances” as the ultimate corruption of purity, as shown through the balanced sentence, “the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty to bawd, than  the force of honesty can translate beauty into his likeness”. Thus, he loses the moral control and rationality he strives for, verbally abusing Ophelia through the highly sexualised biblical allusions of all women being corrupted like Eve, the “breeder of sinners”. Similarly Hamlet loses control when trying to reason with Gertrude, killing Polonius in her bedchamber and showing little remorse. This reflects Renaissance humanist ideas of the dangers of free will as a corrupting force upon humanity. Hamlet’s irrational action stems mainly from Hamlet’s disillusionment of the Machiavellian corruption of his world, as shown through the motive of corruption and decay in the imagery of Denmark as a “rotten” and “unweeded garden”. This is emphasised in the likening of the State to the dead  body of King Hamlet, using synecdoche of Denmark’s “ear” “rankly abused”. Hamlet lurches between rationality, inaction, and passionate action, reaching a point of stasis as his moral code simultaneously prevents Hamlet from taking meaningful action, and spurring rash and violent action. It is only when Hamlet constructs a defined personal identity and justifies his revenge through Divine Providence, as a tragic hero, “born to set it right” that he can actively take revenge and purge Denmark of corruption.

Hamlet’s fears of inaction are compounded through his thoughts on mortality, in which he defies socially accepted thought by questioning the moral legitimacy of suicide. From the outset of the play, Hamlet’s discontent is evident, with his first soliloquy using the hyperbole of “Oh that this too too solid flesh would melt” to express his own keen desire to die. The use of elongated vowel sounds conveys his desperation and hatred of the world and his desire for suicide, which he likens to a sleep with connotations of rest and renewal. Plosives in “Fie on’t, ah fie” further reinforce Hamlet’s desperate discontent with the corruption of Denmark, shown through the metaphor “’tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed”. This brooding sense of mortality endures throughout all five acts, coming to a climax in Hamlet’s famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy. The entire soliloquy is riddled with caesuras, reflecting Hamlet’s conflict between action and inaction; Hamlet feels as if the only way he can take control of his circumstances is “to take arms against a sea of troubles” and end his life. Linguistic contrast in “tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” contrasts passive language, “suffer”, with more active language of “take arms”; further reinforcing Hamlet’s conflict between passionate action and reasoned inaction which leads to Hamlet’s stasis. Repetition is used in “To die to sleep, to sleep perchance to dream”, to liken death to sleep, with connotations of rest and renewal. He eventually realises, however, with the unlikely series of coincidences in the pirate ship, that “there is a divinity that shapes our ends”, and draws upon the failed experience of Claudius and Polonius, of “purposes mistook, fallen on th’inventors heads”, using ironic reversal to convey that those who attempt to control their own fate will ultimately fail. This reflects that Hamlet is an Aristotelian Tragic Hero, unable to control his fate due to the Elizabethan concept of the Great Chain of Being, in which all objects on earth constitute an unbreakable hierarchy towards God. It can be seen through the ceasing of Hamlet’s long and anguished soliloquies, coupled with his renewed eloquence, rationality, monosyllabic language, and his use of the metonym “this is I / Hamlet the Dane”, that Hamlet has re-established his identity and found clarity and a sense of purpose and control. Hamlet’s last words, “the rest is silence”, reflect that the emotional ‘noise’ and turmoil that Hamlet has experienced has disappeared as Hamlet has found true peace.

+ conclusion (I generally don't write a conclusion to my generic essays, but rather make them up on the spot according to the specific question)

Hi! I'd appreciate it heaps if someone could read over my Mod B essay. Firstly, I realise that my essay is about twice the length it should be (sorry!), but I wouldn't write all four paragraphs in an exam - I'd choose the ones most suited to the question (even still, the paragraphs are way too long, but I have so much to say for each point and don't know what to cut out!) Also, I'm generally ok at English and getting my points across clearly, but with this essay I had some real trouble so I'm not sure if it's the clearest essay ever (but also I wrote a generic essay, not according to a specific question, so that might help)... Anyway, I'd really appreciate any feedback you could give!

Spoiler

Disillusioned by conflicting Renaissance and Medieval worlds, Hamlet seeks control through developing a distinct personal identity. Unable to resolve the disparity between these value systems, Hamlet experiences internal conflict as he searches for answers to universal questions of fate, morality, corruption, revenge and duty. By subverting traditional tragic forms such as the revenge tragedy, Shakespeare demonstrates how the universal and seemingly irreconcilable values of duty and morality lead to Hamlet’s immense metaphysical anguish, inhibiting the deterministic action Hamlet strives for. While this internal conflict reflects the religious and moral upheaval of Elizabethan society at the turn of the 17th century, play’s textual integrity is evident as the universal values addressed continue to resound within contemporary audiences.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity are clouded by conflicting Renaissance notions of morality and humanism, versus Medieval notions of duty and revenge, in avenging his father’s death. From the outset of the play, there is dramatic tension between ‘action’ and ‘inaction’, shown primarily between the ideological clash between the Protestant values of Wittenberg and the Catholic values of Denmark in determining whether his father’s ghost “brings airs from heaven or blasts from hell” (Catholic belief in purgatory, versus Protestant disbelief). Through the use of antithesis, Hamlet’s conflicting values of filial duty and God’s divine justice are thrown into light, as Hamlet’s moral framework intercedes his dutiful taking of revenge, which would forsake Christian morality. In this scene, broken metre rather than iambic pentameter is used in, for example, “O horrible, o horrible, most horrible” to convey Hamlet’s distress and turmoil. Hamlet’s words are conflicted by nonsensical binary opposites, such as taking revenge “with wings as swift as meditation”, revealing his internal conflict between taking impassioned revenge and rational action. This is further seen in Hamlet’s second soliloquy, in which Hamlet procrastinates taking or even thinking about action through tautological repetition of “Remember me!”, and by mourning his own circumstances in which he must “couple hell” and “grow not instant old”, before he resolves to take revenge upon Claudius. Just two scenes later, however, Hamlet repudiates this resolve, instead deciding to act in the manner of a rational Renaissance man, stating, “I’ll have grounds more relative than this”, and thus remaining “unpregnant” of his cause. In this way, Hamlet’s introspective nature defies traditional revenge tragedy expectations, as is highlighted through the use of dramatic foil. Laertes, whose rash nature and definitive Medieval values align with those of a traditional revenge hero. This is further reinforced in Hamlet’s soliloquy after the Mousetrap, in which the setting of midnight and the imagery of “drinking hot blood” suggests that unnatural acts will take place, leading the audience to expect Hamlet to finally take revenge. However, unlike Laertes who vows to “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i’th’church”, Hamlet does not kill Claudius, who he believes is praying and so will “send to heaven”, and instead talks with his mother. Thus, Hamlet’s conflicting values of duty and morality create an internal conflict, as his Renaissance moral code prevents him from taking blind Medieval revenge. It is not until he resolves these conflicts at the end of the play that he can find peace and gain control over his life.

Disillusioned by his corrupted world, and idolising Horatio as an autonomous and rational “man  that is not passion’s slave”, Hamlet is driven to regain reason and control of his circumstances through forging a distinct identity from the Court through defying social conventions. He attempts empowerment from the beginning of the play, through distinguishing himself by defying social conventions. He insists on wearing his “inky cloak” of mourning which stands out from the crowd, and makes use of wit and wordplay to inject his words with hidden meanings, with one of his opening lines, “aye madam, it is common”, being a pun and implying what he believes are Gertrude’s loose sexual morals. Hamlet’s short, staccato syllables and witty remarks strike discord with the steady rhythm and melodious tone of Claudius’ blank verse, and his puns parody Claudius’ verbose and superficial language, riddled with incompatible binaries such as “mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage” which allude to Claudius’ hypocrisy. In this way, Hamlet attempts to empower himself over his corrupt surroundings, with his distinctive characterisation effectively thwarting Claudius’ attempts at control. Through the accumulation of images, “'Tis not alone my inky cloak, … / Nor windy suspiration of forced breath, / Nor the fruitful river in the eye … That can denote me truly. / For they are actions that a man might play”, Hamlet reveals his complex understanding of the power of acting, and appearance versus reality. Thus, true to the conventions of a revenge tragedy, Hamlet puts on an “antic disposition” persuade those in the Court that he is a ‘harmless madman’, differentiated by his odd clothes and cryptic speech, in attempts to gain autonomy and control as he can defy social conventions and speak his true thoughts. However, despite this new resolve, Hamlet fails to gain the control, reason and legitimate sense of identity he strives for. This comes to a climax in his Act 2 soliloquy, in which his exclamation “oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I” reveals his intense internal struggle. Hamlet juxtaposes his own inability to take control and enact revenge with the ease of expression of the actor in conveying his character’s father’s death. His changes in tone, from peaks of rage, “O bloody, bawdy villain”, to profound depression, “I, a dull and muddy-mettled rascal”, to introspection, “who does me this”, show that despite his best efforts, Hamlet has not found identity and control in taking autonomy from fate.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity is clouded as he attempts to uphold a high moral code in a corrupted world. This preoccupation with morality spans the duration of the play, with Hamlet himself betraying his own Renaissance value system in moments of passionate action. Due to his context in Medieval Denmark of puritan Catholicism, Hamlet idolises the perceived moral purity of the female characters in the play, Ophelia and Gertrude; with Ophelia being characterised by Hamlet as “the celestial, the most beautified” manifestation of purity, and Gertrude, before Hamlet senior’s death, being “like Niobe – all tears”. Thus, after Gertrude’s speedy marriage and “incestuous desire” with Claudius, Hamlet begins to distrust everyone, especially women. He sees Ophelia’s ‘betrayal’ of Hamlet to Polonius in returning his “remembrances” as the ultimate corruption of purity, as shown through the balanced sentence, “the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty to bawd, than  the force of honesty can translate beauty into his likeness”. Thus, he loses the moral control and rationality he strives for, verbally abusing Ophelia through the highly sexualised biblical allusions of all women being corrupted like Eve, the “breeder of sinners”. Similarly Hamlet loses control when trying to reason with Gertrude, killing Polonius in her bedchamber and showing little remorse. This reflects Renaissance humanist ideas of the dangers of free will as a corrupting force upon humanity. Hamlet’s irrational action stems mainly from Hamlet’s disillusionment of the Machiavellian corruption of his world, as shown through the motive of corruption and decay in the imagery of Denmark as a “rotten” and “unweeded garden”. This is emphasised in the likening of the State to the dead  body of King Hamlet, using synecdoche of Denmark’s “ear” “rankly abused”. Hamlet lurches between rationality, inaction, and passionate action, reaching a point of stasis as his moral code simultaneously prevents Hamlet from taking meaningful action, and spurring rash and violent action. It is only when Hamlet constructs a defined personal identity and justifies his revenge through Divine Providence, as a tragic hero, “born to set it right” that he can actively take revenge and purge Denmark of corruption.

Hamlet’s fears of inaction are compounded through his thoughts on mortality, in which he defies socially accepted thought by questioning the moral legitimacy of suicide. From the outset of the play, Hamlet’s discontent is evident, with his first soliloquy using the hyperbole of “Oh that this too too solid flesh would melt” to express his own keen desire to die. The use of elongated vowel sounds conveys his desperation and hatred of the world and his desire for suicide, which he likens to a sleep with connotations of rest and renewal. Plosives in “Fie on’t, ah fie” further reinforce Hamlet’s desperate discontent with the corruption of Denmark, shown through the metaphor “’tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed”. This brooding sense of mortality endures throughout all five acts, coming to a climax in Hamlet’s famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy. The entire soliloquy is riddled with caesuras, reflecting Hamlet’s conflict between action and inaction; Hamlet feels as if the only way he can take control of his circumstances is “to take arms against a sea of troubles” and end his life. Linguistic contrast in “tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” contrasts passive language, “suffer”, with more active language of “take arms”; further reinforcing Hamlet’s conflict between passionate action and reasoned inaction which leads to Hamlet’s stasis. Repetition is used in “To die to sleep, to sleep perchance to dream”, to liken death to sleep, with connotations of rest and renewal. He eventually realises, however, with the unlikely series of coincidences in the pirate ship, that “there is a divinity that shapes our ends”, and draws upon the failed experience of Claudius and Polonius, of “purposes mistook, fallen on th’inventors heads”, using ironic reversal to convey that those who attempt to control their own fate will ultimately fail. This reflects that Hamlet is an Aristotelian Tragic Hero, unable to control his fate due to the Elizabethan concept of the Great Chain of Being, in which all objects on earth constitute an unbreakable hierarchy towards God. It can be seen through the ceasing of Hamlet’s long and anguished soliloquies, coupled with his renewed eloquence, rationality, monosyllabic language, and his use of the metonym “this is I / Hamlet the Dane”, that Hamlet has re-established his identity and found clarity and a sense of purpose and control. Hamlet’s last words, “the rest is silence”, reflect that the emotional ‘noise’ and turmoil that Hamlet has experienced has disappeared as Hamlet has found true peace.

+ conclusion (I generally don't write a conclusion to my generic essays, but rather make them up on the spot according to the specific question)

Hey! Check out some of my comments below

Original essay

Spoiler

Disillusioned by conflicting Renaissance and Medieval worlds, Hamlet seeks control through developing a distinct personal identity. Unable to resolve the disparity between these value systems, Hamlet experiences internal conflict as he searches for answers to universal questions of fate, morality, corruption, revenge and duty. By subverting traditional tragic forms such as the revenge tragedy, Shakespeare demonstrates how the universal and seemingly irreconcilable values of duty and morality lead to Hamlet’s immense metaphysical anguish, inhibiting the deterministic action Hamlet strives for. While this internal conflict reflects the religious and moral upheaval of Elizabethan society at the turn of the 17th century, play’s textual integrity is evident as the universal values addressed continue to resound within contemporary audiences.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity are clouded by conflicting Renaissance notions of morality and humanism, versus Medieval notions of duty and revenge, in avenging his father’s death. From the outset of the play, there is dramatic tension between ‘action’ and ‘inaction’, shown primarily between the ideological clash between the Protestant values of Wittenberg and the Catholic values of Denmark in determining whether his father’s ghost “brings airs from heaven or blasts from hell” (Catholic belief in purgatory, versus Protestant disbelief). Through the use of antithesis, Hamlet’s conflicting values of filial duty and God’s divine justice are thrown into light, as Hamlet’s moral framework intercedes his dutiful taking of revenge, which would forsake Christian morality. In this scene, broken metre rather than iambic pentameter is used in, for example, “O horrible, o horrible, most horrible” to convey Hamlet’s distress and turmoil. Hamlet’s words are conflicted by nonsensical binary opposites, such as taking revenge “with wings as swift as meditation”, revealing his internal conflict between taking impassioned revenge and rational action. This is further seen in Hamlet’s second soliloquy, in which Hamlet procrastinates taking or even thinking about action through tautological repetition of “Remember me!”, and by mourning his own circumstances in which he must “couple hell” and “grow not instant old”, before he resolves to take revenge upon Claudius. Just two scenes later, however, Hamlet repudiates this resolve, instead deciding to act in the manner of a rational Renaissance man, stating, “I’ll have grounds more relative than this”, and thus remaining “unpregnant” of his cause. In this way, Hamlet’s introspective nature defies traditional revenge tragedy expectations, as is highlighted through the use of dramatic foil. Laertes, whose rash nature and definitive Medieval values align with those of a traditional revenge hero. This is further reinforced in Hamlet’s soliloquy after the Mousetrap, in which the setting of midnight and the imagery of “drinking hot blood” suggests that unnatural acts will take place, leading the audience to expect Hamlet to finally take revenge. However, unlike Laertes who vows to “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i’th’church”, Hamlet does not kill Claudius, who he believes is praying and so will “send to heaven”, and instead talks with his mother. Thus, Hamlet’s conflicting values of duty and morality create an internal conflict, as his Renaissance moral code prevents him from taking blind Medieval revenge. It is not until he resolves these conflicts at the end of the play that he can find peace and gain control over his life.

Disillusioned by his corrupted world, and idolising Horatio as an autonomous and rational “man  that is not passion’s slave”, Hamlet is driven to regain reason and control of his circumstances through forging a distinct identity from the Court through defying social conventions. He attempts empowerment from the beginning of the play, through distinguishing himself by defying social conventions. He insists on wearing his “inky cloak” of mourning which stands out from the crowd, and makes use of wit and wordplay to inject his words with hidden meanings, with one of his opening lines, “aye madam, it is common”, being a pun and implying what he believes are Gertrude’s loose sexual morals. Hamlet’s short, staccato syllables and witty remarks strike discord with the steady rhythm and melodious tone of Claudius’ blank verse, and his puns parody Claudius’ verbose and superficial language, riddled with incompatible binaries such as “mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage” which allude to Claudius’ hypocrisy. In this way, Hamlet attempts to empower himself over his corrupt surroundings, with his distinctive characterisation effectively thwarting Claudius’ attempts at control. Through the accumulation of images, “'Tis not alone my inky cloak, … / Nor windy suspiration of forced breath, / Nor the fruitful river in the eye … That can denote me truly. / For they are actions that a man might play”, Hamlet reveals his complex understanding of the power of acting, and appearance versus reality. Thus, true to the conventions of a revenge tragedy, Hamlet puts on an “antic disposition” persuade those in the Court that he is a ‘harmless madman’, differentiated by his odd clothes and cryptic speech, in attempts to gain autonomy and control as he can defy social conventions and speak his true thoughts. However, despite this new resolve, Hamlet fails to gain the control, reason and legitimate sense of identity he strives for. This comes to a climax in his Act 2 soliloquy, in which his exclamation “oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I” reveals his intense internal struggle. Hamlet juxtaposes his own inability to take control and enact revenge with the ease of expression of the actor in conveying his character’s father’s death. His changes in tone, from peaks of rage, “O bloody, bawdy villain”, to profound depression, “I, a dull and muddy-mettled rascal”, to introspection, “who does me this”, show that despite his best efforts, Hamlet has not found identity and control in taking autonomy from fate.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity is clouded as he attempts to uphold a high moral code in a corrupted world. This preoccupation with morality spans the duration of the play, with Hamlet himself betraying his own Renaissance value system in moments of passionate action. Due to his context in Medieval Denmark of puritan Catholicism, Hamlet idolises the perceived moral purity of the female characters in the play, Ophelia and Gertrude; with Ophelia being characterised by Hamlet as “the celestial, the most beautified” manifestation of purity, and Gertrude, before Hamlet senior’s death, being “like Niobe – all tears”. Thus, after Gertrude’s speedy marriage and “incestuous desire” with Claudius, Hamlet begins to distrust everyone, especially women. He sees Ophelia’s ‘betrayal’ of Hamlet to Polonius in returning his “remembrances” as the ultimate corruption of purity, as shown through the balanced sentence, “the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty to bawd, than  the force of honesty can translate beauty into his likeness”. Thus, he loses the moral control and rationality he strives for, verbally abusing Ophelia through the highly sexualised biblical allusions of all women being corrupted like Eve, the “breeder of sinners”. Similarly Hamlet loses control when trying to reason with Gertrude, killing Polonius in her bedchamber and showing little remorse. This reflects Renaissance humanist ideas of the dangers of free will as a corrupting force upon humanity. Hamlet’s irrational action stems mainly from Hamlet’s disillusionment of the Machiavellian corruption of his world, as shown through the motive of corruption and decay in the imagery of Denmark as a “rotten” and “unweeded garden”. This is emphasised in the likening of the State to the dead  body of King Hamlet, using synecdoche of Denmark’s “ear” “rankly abused”. Hamlet lurches between rationality, inaction, and passionate action, reaching a point of stasis as his moral code simultaneously prevents Hamlet from taking meaningful action, and spurring rash and violent action. It is only when Hamlet constructs a defined personal identity and justifies his revenge through Divine Providence, as a tragic hero, “born to set it right” that he can actively take revenge and purge Denmark of corruption.

Hamlet’s fears of inaction are compounded through his thoughts on mortality, in which he defies socially accepted thought by questioning the moral legitimacy of suicide. From the outset of the play, Hamlet’s discontent is evident, with his first soliloquy using the hyperbole of “Oh that this too too solid flesh would melt” to express his own keen desire to die. The use of elongated vowel sounds conveys his desperation and hatred of the world and his desire for suicide, which he likens to a sleep with connotations of rest and renewal. Plosives in “Fie on’t, ah fie” further reinforce Hamlet’s desperate discontent with the corruption of Denmark, shown through the metaphor “’tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed”. This brooding sense of mortality endures throughout all five acts, coming to a climax in Hamlet’s famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy. The entire soliloquy is riddled with caesuras, reflecting Hamlet’s conflict between action and inaction; Hamlet feels as if the only way he can take control of his circumstances is “to take arms against a sea of troubles” and end his life. Linguistic contrast in “tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” contrasts passive language, “suffer”, with more active language of “take arms”; further reinforcing Hamlet’s conflict between passionate action and reasoned inaction which leads to Hamlet’s stasis. Repetition is used in “To die to sleep, to sleep perchance to dream”, to liken death to sleep, with connotations of rest and renewal. He eventually realises, however, with the unlikely series of coincidences in the pirate ship, that “there is a divinity that shapes our ends”, and draws upon the failed experience of Claudius and Polonius, of “purposes mistook, fallen on th’inventors heads”, using ironic reversal to convey that those who attempt to control their own fate will ultimately fail. This reflects that Hamlet is an Aristotelian Tragic Hero, unable to control his fate due to the Elizabethan concept of the Great Chain of Being, in which all objects on earth constitute an unbreakable hierarchy towards God. It can be seen through the ceasing of Hamlet’s long and anguished soliloquies, coupled with his renewed eloquence, rationality, monosyllabic language, and his use of the metonym “this is I / Hamlet the Dane”, that Hamlet has re-established his identity and found clarity and a sense of purpose and control. Hamlet’s last words, “the rest is silence”, reflect that the emotional ‘noise’ and turmoil that Hamlet has experienced has disappeared as Hamlet has found true peace.

+ conclusion (I generally don't write a conclusion to my generic essays, but rather make them up on the spot according to the specific question)

Essay with comments

Spoiler

Disillusioned by conflicting Renaissance and Medieval worlds, Hamlet seeks control through developing a distinct personal identity. It's possible you're confusing Hamlet and Shakespeare here. Can you make it clear that SHAKESPEARE was feeling conflicted in this time, and thus he created the character of Hamlet? But, can I say, this is an amazing intro sentence Unable to resolve the disparity between these value systems, Hamlet experiences internal conflict as he searches for answers to universal questions of fate, morality, corruption, revenge and duty. By subverting traditional tragic forms such as the revenge tragedy, Shakespeare demonstrates how the universal and seemingly irreconcilable values of duty and morality lead to Hamlet’s immense metaphysical anguish, inhibiting the deterministic action Hamlet strives for. While this internal conflict reflects the religious and moral upheaval of Elizabethan society at the turn of the 17th century, play’s textual integrity is evident as the universal values addressed continue to resound within contemporary audiences. Brilliant introduction. Genuinely incredible. Keep on doing what you're doing.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity are clouded by conflicting Renaissance notions of morality and humanism, versus Medieval notions of duty and revenge, in avenging his father’s death. From the outset of the play, there is dramatic tension between ‘action’ and ‘inaction’, shown primarily between the ideological clash between the Protestant values of Wittenberg and the Catholic values of Denmark in determining whether his father’s ghost “brings airs from heaven or blasts from hell” (Catholic belief in purgatory, versus Protestant disbelief). Just want to reiterate how great this is Through the use of antithesis, Hamlet’s conflicting values of filial duty and God’s divine justice are thrown into light, as Hamlet’s moral framework intercedes his dutiful taking of revenge, which would forsake Christian morality. In this scene, broken metre rather than iambic pentameter is used in, for example, “O horrible, o horrible, most horrible” to convey Hamlet’s distress and turmoil. Rather than say 'In this scene', try placing it in the context of the play. That way, you don't 'break character'; you're analysing a story! Hamlet’s words are conflicted by nonsensical binary opposites, This is the exact sort of phrase I love to use; again, no negative comments, just keep on doing this. such as taking revenge “with wings as swift as meditation”, revealing his internal conflict between taking impassioned revenge and rational action. This is further seen in Hamlet’s second soliloquy, in which Hamlet procrastinates taking or even thinking about action through tautological repetition of “Remember me!”, and by mourning his own circumstances in which he must “couple hell” and “grow not instant old”, before he resolves to take revenge upon Claudius. Just two scenes later, however, "Soon after"? "Following this specific event"? Again, I would stray away from 'two scenes later', plus you get to show your knowledge of the plot! Hamlet repudiates this resolve, instead deciding to act in the manner of a rational Renaissance man, stating, “I’ll have grounds more relative than this”, and thus remaining “unpregnant” of his cause. In this way, Hamlet’s introspective nature defies traditional revenge tragedy expectations, as is highlighted through the use of dramatic foil. Laertes, whose rash nature and definitive Medieval values align with those of a traditional revenge hero. This sentence starts, but doesn't end This is further reinforced in Hamlet’s soliloquy after the Mousetrap, in which the setting of midnight and the imagery of “drinking hot blood” suggests that unnatural acts will take place, leading the audience to expect Hamlet to finally take revenge. However, unlike Laertes who vows to “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i’th’church”, Hamlet does not kill Claudius, who he believes is praying and so will “send to heaven”, and instead talks with his mother. Try to be more succinct when going through plot; you don't need to recount, just place, in time. Thus, Hamlet’s conflicting values of duty and morality create an internal conflict, as his Renaissance moral code prevents him from taking blind Medieval revenge. It is not until he resolves these conflicts at the end of the play that he can find peace and gain control over his life.

Brilliant paragraph. My only comment is that a strong thesis is not coming through to the extent that I think it could, and that is simply a result of the text not being a response to a specific question. Try working the paragraph to a number of questions, and just make sure that it still works in that context. That being said, I have no doubt you'll be able to succeed!

Disillusioned by his corrupted world, and idolising Horatio as an autonomous and rational “man  that is not passion’s slave”, Hamlet is driven to regain reason and control of his circumstances through forging a distinct identity from the Court through defying social conventions. He attempts empowerment from the beginning of the play, through distinguishing himself by defying social conventions. Repetition of 'social conventions': Avoid! He insists on wearing his “inky cloak” of mourning which stands out from the crowd, and makes use of wit and wordplay to inject his words with hidden meanings, with one of his opening lines, “aye madam, it is common”, being a pun and implying what he believes are Gertrude’s loose sexual morals. So? How is this specific quote relevant to your argument? Hamlet’s short, staccato syllables and witty remarks strike discord with the steady rhythm and melodious tone of Claudius’ blank verse, and his puns parody Claudius’ verbose and superficial language, riddled with incompatible binaries such as “mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage” which allude to Claudius’ hypocrisy. In this way, Hamlet attempts to empower himself over his corrupt surroundings, with his distinctive characterisation effectively thwarting Claudius’ attempts at control. Through the accumulation of images, “'Tis not alone my inky cloak, … / Nor windy suspiration of forced breath, / Nor the fruitful river in the eye … That can denote me truly. / For they are actions that a man might play”, Hamlet reveals his complex understanding of the power of acting, and appearance versus reality. Thus, true to the conventions of a revenge tragedy, Hamlet puts on an “antic disposition” persuade those in the Court that he is a ‘harmless madman’, differentiated by his odd clothes and cryptic speech, in attempts to gain autonomy and control as he can defy social conventions and speak his true thoughts. However, despite this new resolve, Hamlet fails to gain the control, reason and legitimate sense of identity he strives for. This comes to a climax in his Act 2 soliloquy, in which his exclamation “oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I” reveals his intense internal struggle. Hamlet juxtaposes his own inability to take control and enact revenge with the ease of expression of the actor in conveying his character’s father’s death. His changes in tone, from peaks of rage, “O bloody, bawdy villain”, to profound depression, “I, a dull and muddy-mettled rascal”, to introspection, “who does me this”, show that despite his best efforts, Hamlet has not found identity and control in taking autonomy from fate.

The problem is that I don't have much to comment on. Your analysis is fantastic, your techniques are complex, your language is on point. Your main flaw at this stage is building a thesis between paragraphs, but you couldn't really have done that without a question.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity is clouded as he attempts to uphold a high moral code in a corrupted world. How is the world corrupt? This preoccupation with morality spans the duration of the play, with Hamlet himself betraying his own Renaissance value system in moments of passionate action. I used a similar thesis in my HSC year. I think it would be clever to make clear the significance of what you're saying; Hamlet does not procrastinate (as every single student in NSW will claim); he merely underwent metamorphosis in a different sense than the classical 'action'. In conforming to this convention, he is BETRAYING himself. He is not a serial procrastinator; his values are just antipodes to the modern ethos. Due to his context in Medieval Denmark of puritan Catholicism, Hamlet idolises the perceived moral purity of the female characters in the play, Ophelia and Gertrude; with Ophelia being characterised by Hamlet as “the celestial, the most beautified” manifestation of purity, and Gertrude, before Hamlet senior’s death, being “like Niobe – all tears”. Thus, after Gertrude’s speedy marriage and “incestuous desire” with Claudius, Hamlet begins to distrust everyone, especially women. He sees Ophelia’s ‘betrayal’ of Hamlet to Polonius in returning his “remembrances” as the ultimate corruption of purity, as shown through the balanced sentence, “the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty to bawd, than  the force of honesty can translate beauty into his likeness”. Thus, he loses the moral control and rationality he strives for, verbally abusing Ophelia through the highly sexualised biblical allusions of all women being corrupted like Eve, the “breeder of sinners”. Similarly Hamlet loses control when trying to reason with Gertrude, killing Polonius in her bedchamber and showing little remorse. Outwardly, perhaps, but doesn't his entire demeanor change following the exchange? This reflects Renaissance humanist ideas of the dangers of free will as a corrupting force upon humanity. Hamlet’s irrational action stems mainly from Hamlet’s disillusionment of the Machiavellian corruption of his world, as shown through the motive of corruption and decay in the imagery of Denmark as a “rotten” and “unweeded garden”. This is emphasised in the likening of the State to the dead  body of King Hamlet, using synecdoche of Denmark’s “ear” “rankly abused”. Hamlet lurches between rationality, inaction, and passionate action, reaching a point of stasis as his moral code simultaneously prevents Hamlet from taking meaningful action, and spurring rash and violent action. It is only when Hamlet constructs a defined personal identity and justifies his revenge through Divine Providence, as a tragic hero, “born to set it right” that he can actively take revenge and purge Denmark of corruption.

Hamlet’s fears of inaction are compounded through his thoughts on mortality, in which he defies socially accepted thought by questioning the moral legitimacy of suicide. From the outset of the play, Hamlet’s discontent is evident, with his first soliloquy using the hyperbole of “Oh that this too too solid flesh would melt” to express his own keen desire to die. The use of elongated vowel sounds conveys his desperation and hatred of the world and his desire for suicide, which he likens to a sleep with connotations of rest and renewal. Plosives in “Fie on’t, ah fie” further reinforce Hamlet’s desperate discontent with the corruption of Denmark, shown through the metaphor “’tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed”. This brooding sense of mortality endures throughout all five acts, coming to a climax in Hamlet’s famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy. The entire soliloquy is riddled with caesuras, reflecting Hamlet’s conflict between action and inaction; Hamlet feels as if the only way he can take control of his circumstances is “to take arms against a sea of troubles” and end his life. Bloody hell, that's some good stuff. I love overcomplicating an essay; that's how I got all of my marks Linguistic contrast in “tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” contrasts passive language, “suffer”, with more active language of “take arms”; further reinforcing Hamlet’s conflict between passionate action and reasoned inaction which leads to Hamlet’s stasis. Repetition is used in “To die to sleep, to sleep perchance to dream”, to liken death to sleep, with connotations of rest and renewal. He eventually realises, however, with the unlikely series of coincidences in the pirate ship, that “there is a divinity that shapes our ends”, and draws upon the failed experience of Claudius and Polonius, of “purposes mistook, fallen on th’inventors heads”, using ironic reversal to convey that those who attempt to control their own fate will ultimately fail. This reflects that Hamlet is an Aristotelian Tragic Hero, unable to control his fate due to the Elizabethan concept of the Great Chain of Being, in which all objects on earth constitute an unbreakable hierarchy towards God. It can be seen through the ceasing of Hamlet’s long and anguished soliloquies, coupled with his renewed eloquence, rationality, monosyllabic language, and his use of the metonym “this is I / Hamlet the Dane”, that Hamlet has re-established his identity and found clarity and a sense of purpose and control. Hamlet’s last words, “the rest is silence”, reflect that the emotional ‘noise’ and turmoil that Hamlet has experienced has disappeared as Hamlet has found true peace.

+ conclusion (I generally don't write a conclusion to my generic essays, but rather make them up on the spot according to the specific question)


Look, there's not much I can say. Practice working it to a thesis, cut down the word count a little, and keep on doing what you're doing. Congratulations on a fantastic essay.

[jakesilove]

Hey! Could you please give me some feedback on my Mod A essay,
Thanks, Sam

Hey Sam! Check my comments below

Original Essay

Spoiler

Texts are manifestations of their composer’s perspectives, and thus are influenced by the dominant political, cultural and social ideologies pervading the contexts in which they were created. The comparative study of George Orwell’s prose fiction ‘1984’ (1948) and Fritz Lang’s silent film “Metropolis” (1927), elucidates their similar perspectives on autocratic political regimes and their implications on humanity, due to similar contextual concerns in their respective post war contexts. Both Orwell and Lang explore the autocratic subjugation of humanity imposed by despotic political agendas and examine the role of the individual in repressed societies.

Both Orwell and Lang examine the suppression of humanity sanctioned by Totalitarianism, warning their audiences of the catastrophic ramifications of absolute power. Through ‘1984’ Orwell satirically denounces the corrosive implications of oppressive political regimes on society, incited by the regimes of Stalin, Franco and Mussolini which permeated Orwell’s post WW2 context. The motif of the Telescreens, “You had to assume every sound you made was overheard”, in conjunction with the Thought Police, depicts the outer party in a perpetual state of constant surveillance, mirroring the political repression employed by Stalin in Soviet Russia, specifically through the NKVD, thus highlighting the dilution and repression of free speech enforced by Totalitarianism. The employment of irony in the Party’s triptych slogan, ‘War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength,’ reveals the inversion of morality endorsed by the Party, and the exploitation of their absolute power, evoked by Orwell’s critical observations of visibly immoral political propaganda. Obrien’s metaphor, ‘if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever’, capturing the bleak tone induced by totalitarian regimes, and exposing the marginalisation of humanity, thus warning his audience on the corrosive nature of absolute power welded by totalitarian agendas like Stalinism.

In a similar way, Fritz Lang through ‘Metropolis’ strives to condemn the social and economic disparity compounded by political and social agendas, influenced by the growing capitalist influence on an economically vulnerable Germany who were under the Weimar Republic post WW1, and the morals associated with capitalism which Lang feared would overrun Germany. Like Orwell, Lang presents a dystopic perspective of society, juxtaposing the affluent minority of Metropolis with the majority of impoverished workers of Metropolis to illustrate the nature of societal subordination. Lang employs wide angle shots, used to depict the affluence of the people of Metropolis in their privileged settings, such as the Son’s Club, as well as key lighting and the ellipsis of night-time, to convey their idyllic lifestyle, whilst their extravagant white clothing symbolises purity and illustrious wealth. This is juxtaposed by the workers below the ground, who are captured shuffling in lifelessly in unison, conveying the stylistic influence of German Expressionism on Lang’s cinematography, and encapsulating the drudgery of the workers, evoking a sense of empathy towards the working class, both in the film and in the context of the Weimar Republic, conveying the degrading ramifications of social disparity. Their congruence of uniform, evident in the back overalls, illustrates the loss of identity imposed by the society, and conveys the commodification of the working class endorsed by capitalism. Thus Lang also illustrates the discriminatory nature that can manifest from segregated societies, condemning the segregation in the Weimar Republic and highlighting the need for change.

Additionally, both Orwell and Lang endorse the role of the individual in defying oppressive regimes. Through ‘1984’, Orwell endorses the salutary ramifications of humanity and connection in the face of oppressive and controlling regimes. This idea was evoked by Orwell’s personal context, in which he was growing fearful of a world devoid of humanity and the individual, catalysed by a USSR operating under an extreme interpretation of socialism. Orwell employs the metaphor,” Their embrace had been a battle, their climax a victory,” illustrating Winton’s conscious defiance of the party and underscoring the influence of humanity and connection. The recurring motif of the varicose ulcer on his ankle highlights Winston’s mortality, representing Winton’s rebelliousness as a manifestation of humanity rather than physical superiority, conveying the strength of humanity and individuality. The metaphor, ‘It was as though they were intentionally stepping nearer to their own graves’, portraying the innate danger of their relationship, reinforcing the strength of humanity and virtuous nature of human affection. 

Alternatively, Lang also examines the value of the individual in diminishing social oppression, but in contrast to Orwell, seeks to warn against a rebellion, rather invoking the idea of a mediator to bring about social reform. This idea was evoked by the need for a mediator to enact change in the socially stratified, as well as Lang’s fears of a violent uprising from the working class. The juxtaposition of the thriving Metropolis at the beginning of the film, conveyed by the German Expression inspired lines and height of the skyscrapers symbolising might, and the Metropolis after the revolt of the workers, symbolised by the flooding of the city illustrates this idea. This conveys the dire consequences of this revolt, as well as highlighting the futility of their actions, as they destroyed what they once sought after, blinded by emotion evoked by false Maria. The frantic nature of the music emphasises the chaotic nature of the revolt, and the turmoil of Metropolis, which is emphasised by the shaky handheld camerawork, illustrating the futility of their act, initiated through the destruction of Metropolis, and positioning the audience to view Lang’s perspective on the detrimental effects of rebellion evoked through disillusionment.   

Statue-Neptune/Poseidon-wealth.

Essay with comments

Spoiler

Texts are manifestations of their composer’s perspectives, and thus are influenced by the dominant political, cultural and social ideologies pervading the contexts in which they were created. The comparative study of George Orwell’s prose fiction ‘1984’ (1948) and Fritz Lang’s silent film “Metropolis” (1927), elucidates their similar perspectives on autocratic political regimes and their implications on humanity, due to similar contextual concerns in their respective post war contexts. Both Orwell and Lang explore the autocratic subjugation of humanity imposed by despotic political agendas and examine the role of the individual in repressed societies. 

Great intro! Make it really clear what themes you'll be discussing, but also what conclusion you will draw by a comparison of the texts. Sure, both might explore the same thing, but what do they say about that thing?

Both Orwell and Lang examine the suppression of humanity sanctioned by Totalitarianism, warning their audiences of the catastrophic ramifications of absolute power. Through ‘1984’ Orwell satirically denounces the corrosive implications of oppressive political regimes on society, incited by the regimes of Stalin, Franco and Mussolini which permeated Orwell’s post WW2II context. The motif of the Telescreens, “You had to assume every sound you made was overheard”, in conjunction with the Thought Police, depicts the outer party in a perpetual state of constant surveillance, mirroring the political repression employed by Stalin in Soviet Russia, specifically through the NKVD, thus highlighting the dilution and repression of free speech enforced by Totalitarianism. I agree that this is the depiction, but it's certainly not a technique. Maybe an allusion? You need to make sure you're making a textual analysis, not a historical analysis, when dealing with quotes (although both is probably good as well). The employment of irony Is it irony? Or oxymoronic in the Party’s triptych slogan, ‘War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength,’ reveals the inversion of morality endorsed by the Party, and the exploitation of their absolute power, evoked by Orwell’s critical observations of visibly immoral political propaganda. Again, I need greater analysis of the language techniques present. 'Rule of threes' is actually a technique, lending power to the quote. Obrien’s O'Brien? metaphor, ‘if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever’, capturing the bleak tone induced by totalitarian regimes, and exposing the marginalisation of humanity, thus warning his audience on the corrosive nature of absolute power welded by totalitarian agendas like Stalinism. This is a great quote; go into depth about the importance of metaphor, the potential hyperbole, the military imagery. Your tone is great, the quotes you've chosen are perfect, your discussion of context is brilliant, but you can't forget that this is an English essay!

In a similar way, Fritz Lang through ‘Metropolis’ strives to condemn the social and economic disparity compounded by political and social agendas, influenced by the growing capitalist influence on an economically vulnerable Germany who were under the Weimar Republic post WW1, and the morals associated with capitalism which Lang feared would overrun Germany. Like Orwell, Lang presents a dystopic perspective of society, juxtaposing the affluent minority of Metropolis with the majority of impoverished workers of Metropolis to illustrate the nature of societal subordination. What does this say about humanity? How does this add to your thesis? I think you need to write down your explicit thesis, and make sure to consistently go back and refer to it. Your argument is great, and persuasive, but it doesn't feel unified. Lang employs wide angle shots, used to depict the affluence of the people of Metropolis in their privileged settings, such as the Son’s Club, as well as key lighting and the ellipsis of night-time, to convey their idyllic lifestyle, whilst their extravagant white clothing symbolises purity and illustrious wealth. This sentence is way too long; can you break it into two? This is juxtaposed by the workers below the ground, who are captured shuffling in lifelessly in unison, conveying the stylistic influence of German Expressionism on Lang’s cinematography, and encapsulating the drudgery of the workers, evoking a sense of empathy towards the working class, both in the film and in the context of the Weimar Republic, conveying the degrading ramifications of social disparity. Same problem. Shorten the sentence Their congruence of uniform, evident in the b?ack overalls, illustrates the loss of identity imposed by the society, and conveys the commodification of the working class endorsed by capitalism. Thus Lang also illustrates the discriminatory nature that can manifest from segregated societies, condemning the segregation in the Weimar Republic and highlighting the need for change. See my point about thesis above.

Additionally, both Orwell and Lang endorse the role of the individual in defying oppressive regimes. Through ‘1984’, Orwell endorses the salutary ramifications of humanity and connection in the face of oppressive and controlling regimes. This idea was evoked by Orwell’s personal context, in which he was growing fearful of a world devoid of humanity and the individual, catalysed by a USSR operating under an extreme interpretation of socialism. Orwell employs the metaphor,” Their embrace had been a battle, their climax a victory,” illustrating Winton’s conscious defiance of the party and underscoring the influence of humanity and connection. Just something to think about; thematically, does Orwell draw the conclusion that these moments are so significant? They both turn on each other, are destroyed by their society, and become emotionless zombies. Their journey is almost meaningless. Can you draw any conclusions from that? The recurring motif of the varicose ulcer on his ankle highlights Winston’s mortality, representing Winton’s rebelliousness as a manifestation of humanity rather than physical superiority, conveying the strength of humanity and individuality. Make this clearer; it is his EXISTENCE, not physically but emotionally/psychologically that is important here. We can all rebel, no matter what our condition. The metaphor, ‘It was as though they were intentionally stepping nearer to their own graves’, portraying the innate danger of their relationship, reinforcing the strength of humanity and virtuous nature of human affection. 

Great paragraph, and your analysis certainly got better and more specific. Try to draw on the theme more, so it feels like your building an argument. Great work though.

Alternatively, [Similarly?] Lang also examines the value of the individual in diminishing social oppression, but in contrast to Orwell, seeks to warn against a rebellion, rather invoking the idea of a mediator to bring about social reform. Brilliant. It takes a good author to compare similarities of work, but it takes a great author to display differences This idea was evoked by the need for a mediator to enact change in the socially stratified, as well as Lang’s fears of a violent uprising from the working class. The juxtaposition of the thriving Metropolis at the beginning of the film, conveyed by the German Expression inspired lines and height of the skyscrapers symbolising might, and the Metropolis after the revolt of the workers, symbolised by the flooding of the city illustrates this idea. This conveys the dire consequences of this revolt, as well as highlighting the futility of their actions, as they destroyed what they once sought after, blinded by emotion evoked by false Maria. The frantic nature of the music emphasises the chaotic nature of the revolt, and the turmoil of Metropolis, which is emphasised by the shaky handheld camerawork, illustrating the futility of their act, initiated through the destruction of Metropolis, and positioning the audience to view Lang’s perspective on the detrimental effects of rebellion evoked through disillusionment.   

Great essay (with presumably a conclusion to come). My main points are all above; work on your textual analysis of quotes, and bring everything together into a unifying thesis. Really great work, and I especially love the breadth and depth of your knowledge, which will be applicable to any question they throw at you!
Statue-Neptune/Poseidon-wealth.

[lozil]

Hey! Check out some of my comments below

Original essay

Spoiler

Disillusioned by conflicting Renaissance and Medieval worlds, Hamlet seeks control through developing a distinct personal identity. Unable to resolve the disparity between these value systems, Hamlet experiences internal conflict as he searches for answers to universal questions of fate, morality, corruption, revenge and duty. By subverting traditional tragic forms such as the revenge tragedy, Shakespeare demonstrates how the universal and seemingly irreconcilable values of duty and morality lead to Hamlet’s immense metaphysical anguish, inhibiting the deterministic action Hamlet strives for. While this internal conflict reflects the religious and moral upheaval of Elizabethan society at the turn of the 17th century, play’s textual integrity is evident as the universal values addressed continue to resound within contemporary audiences.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity are clouded by conflicting Renaissance notions of morality and humanism, versus Medieval notions of duty and revenge, in avenging his father’s death. From the outset of the play, there is dramatic tension between ‘action’ and ‘inaction’, shown primarily between the ideological clash between the Protestant values of Wittenberg and the Catholic values of Denmark in determining whether his father’s ghost “brings airs from heaven or blasts from hell” (Catholic belief in purgatory, versus Protestant disbelief). Through the use of antithesis, Hamlet’s conflicting values of filial duty and God’s divine justice are thrown into light, as Hamlet’s moral framework intercedes his dutiful taking of revenge, which would forsake Christian morality. In this scene, broken metre rather than iambic pentameter is used in, for example, “O horrible, o horrible, most horrible” to convey Hamlet’s distress and turmoil. Hamlet’s words are conflicted by nonsensical binary opposites, such as taking revenge “with wings as swift as meditation”, revealing his internal conflict between taking impassioned revenge and rational action. This is further seen in Hamlet’s second soliloquy, in which Hamlet procrastinates taking or even thinking about action through tautological repetition of “Remember me!”, and by mourning his own circumstances in which he must “couple hell” and “grow not instant old”, before he resolves to take revenge upon Claudius. Just two scenes later, however, Hamlet repudiates this resolve, instead deciding to act in the manner of a rational Renaissance man, stating, “I’ll have grounds more relative than this”, and thus remaining “unpregnant” of his cause. In this way, Hamlet’s introspective nature defies traditional revenge tragedy expectations, as is highlighted through the use of dramatic foil. Laertes, whose rash nature and definitive Medieval values align with those of a traditional revenge hero. This is further reinforced in Hamlet’s soliloquy after the Mousetrap, in which the setting of midnight and the imagery of “drinking hot blood” suggests that unnatural acts will take place, leading the audience to expect Hamlet to finally take revenge. However, unlike Laertes who vows to “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i’th’church”, Hamlet does not kill Claudius, who he believes is praying and so will “send to heaven”, and instead talks with his mother. Thus, Hamlet’s conflicting values of duty and morality create an internal conflict, as his Renaissance moral code prevents him from taking blind Medieval revenge. It is not until he resolves these conflicts at the end of the play that he can find peace and gain control over his life.

Disillusioned by his corrupted world, and idolising Horatio as an autonomous and rational “man  that is not passion’s slave”, Hamlet is driven to regain reason and control of his circumstances through forging a distinct identity from the Court through defying social conventions. He attempts empowerment from the beginning of the play, through distinguishing himself by defying social conventions. He insists on wearing his “inky cloak” of mourning which stands out from the crowd, and makes use of wit and wordplay to inject his words with hidden meanings, with one of his opening lines, “aye madam, it is common”, being a pun and implying what he believes are Gertrude’s loose sexual morals. Hamlet’s short, staccato syllables and witty remarks strike discord with the steady rhythm and melodious tone of Claudius’ blank verse, and his puns parody Claudius’ verbose and superficial language, riddled with incompatible binaries such as “mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage” which allude to Claudius’ hypocrisy. In this way, Hamlet attempts to empower himself over his corrupt surroundings, with his distinctive characterisation effectively thwarting Claudius’ attempts at control. Through the accumulation of images, “'Tis not alone my inky cloak, … / Nor windy suspiration of forced breath, / Nor the fruitful river in the eye … That can denote me truly. / For they are actions that a man might play”, Hamlet reveals his complex understanding of the power of acting, and appearance versus reality. Thus, true to the conventions of a revenge tragedy, Hamlet puts on an “antic disposition” persuade those in the Court that he is a ‘harmless madman’, differentiated by his odd clothes and cryptic speech, in attempts to gain autonomy and control as he can defy social conventions and speak his true thoughts. However, despite this new resolve, Hamlet fails to gain the control, reason and legitimate sense of identity he strives for. This comes to a climax in his Act 2 soliloquy, in which his exclamation “oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I” reveals his intense internal struggle. Hamlet juxtaposes his own inability to take control and enact revenge with the ease of expression of the actor in conveying his character’s father’s death. His changes in tone, from peaks of rage, “O bloody, bawdy villain”, to profound depression, “I, a dull and muddy-mettled rascal”, to introspection, “who does me this”, show that despite his best efforts, Hamlet has not found identity and control in taking autonomy from fate.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity is clouded as he attempts to uphold a high moral code in a corrupted world. This preoccupation with morality spans the duration of the play, with Hamlet himself betraying his own Renaissance value system in moments of passionate action. Due to his context in Medieval Denmark of puritan Catholicism, Hamlet idolises the perceived moral purity of the female characters in the play, Ophelia and Gertrude; with Ophelia being characterised by Hamlet as “the celestial, the most beautified” manifestation of purity, and Gertrude, before Hamlet senior’s death, being “like Niobe – all tears”. Thus, after Gertrude’s speedy marriage and “incestuous desire” with Claudius, Hamlet begins to distrust everyone, especially women. He sees Ophelia’s ‘betrayal’ of Hamlet to Polonius in returning his “remembrances” as the ultimate corruption of purity, as shown through the balanced sentence, “the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty to bawd, than  the force of honesty can translate beauty into his likeness”. Thus, he loses the moral control and rationality he strives for, verbally abusing Ophelia through the highly sexualised biblical allusions of all women being corrupted like Eve, the “breeder of sinners”. Similarly Hamlet loses control when trying to reason with Gertrude, killing Polonius in her bedchamber and showing little remorse. This reflects Renaissance humanist ideas of the dangers of free will as a corrupting force upon humanity. Hamlet’s irrational action stems mainly from Hamlet’s disillusionment of the Machiavellian corruption of his world, as shown through the motive of corruption and decay in the imagery of Denmark as a “rotten” and “unweeded garden”. This is emphasised in the likening of the State to the dead  body of King Hamlet, using synecdoche of Denmark’s “ear” “rankly abused”. Hamlet lurches between rationality, inaction, and passionate action, reaching a point of stasis as his moral code simultaneously prevents Hamlet from taking meaningful action, and spurring rash and violent action. It is only when Hamlet constructs a defined personal identity and justifies his revenge through Divine Providence, as a tragic hero, “born to set it right” that he can actively take revenge and purge Denmark of corruption.

Hamlet’s fears of inaction are compounded through his thoughts on mortality, in which he defies socially accepted thought by questioning the moral legitimacy of suicide. From the outset of the play, Hamlet’s discontent is evident, with his first soliloquy using the hyperbole of “Oh that this too too solid flesh would melt” to express his own keen desire to die. The use of elongated vowel sounds conveys his desperation and hatred of the world and his desire for suicide, which he likens to a sleep with connotations of rest and renewal. Plosives in “Fie on’t, ah fie” further reinforce Hamlet’s desperate discontent with the corruption of Denmark, shown through the metaphor “’tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed”. This brooding sense of mortality endures throughout all five acts, coming to a climax in Hamlet’s famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy. The entire soliloquy is riddled with caesuras, reflecting Hamlet’s conflict between action and inaction; Hamlet feels as if the only way he can take control of his circumstances is “to take arms against a sea of troubles” and end his life. Linguistic contrast in “tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” contrasts passive language, “suffer”, with more active language of “take arms”; further reinforcing Hamlet’s conflict between passionate action and reasoned inaction which leads to Hamlet’s stasis. Repetition is used in “To die to sleep, to sleep perchance to dream”, to liken death to sleep, with connotations of rest and renewal. He eventually realises, however, with the unlikely series of coincidences in the pirate ship, that “there is a divinity that shapes our ends”, and draws upon the failed experience of Claudius and Polonius, of “purposes mistook, fallen on th’inventors heads”, using ironic reversal to convey that those who attempt to control their own fate will ultimately fail. This reflects that Hamlet is an Aristotelian Tragic Hero, unable to control his fate due to the Elizabethan concept of the Great Chain of Being, in which all objects on earth constitute an unbreakable hierarchy towards God. It can be seen through the ceasing of Hamlet’s long and anguished soliloquies, coupled with his renewed eloquence, rationality, monosyllabic language, and his use of the metonym “this is I / Hamlet the Dane”, that Hamlet has re-established his identity and found clarity and a sense of purpose and control. Hamlet’s last words, “the rest is silence”, reflect that the emotional ‘noise’ and turmoil that Hamlet has experienced has disappeared as Hamlet has found true peace.

+ conclusion (I generally don't write a conclusion to my generic essays, but rather make them up on the spot according to the specific question)

Essay with comments

Spoiler

Disillusioned by conflicting Renaissance and Medieval worlds, Hamlet seeks control through developing a distinct personal identity. It's possible you're confusing Hamlet and Shakespeare here. Can you make it clear that SHAKESPEARE was feeling conflicted in this time, and thus he created the character of Hamlet? But, can I say, this is an amazing intro sentence Unable to resolve the disparity between these value systems, Hamlet experiences internal conflict as he searches for answers to universal questions of fate, morality, corruption, revenge and duty. By subverting traditional tragic forms such as the revenge tragedy, Shakespeare demonstrates how the universal and seemingly irreconcilable values of duty and morality lead to Hamlet’s immense metaphysical anguish, inhibiting the deterministic action Hamlet strives for. While this internal conflict reflects the religious and moral upheaval of Elizabethan society at the turn of the 17th century, play’s textual integrity is evident as the universal values addressed continue to resound within contemporary audiences. Brilliant introduction. Genuinely incredible. Keep on doing what you're doing.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity are clouded by conflicting Renaissance notions of morality and humanism, versus Medieval notions of duty and revenge, in avenging his father’s death. From the outset of the play, there is dramatic tension between ‘action’ and ‘inaction’, shown primarily between the ideological clash between the Protestant values of Wittenberg and the Catholic values of Denmark in determining whether his father’s ghost “brings airs from heaven or blasts from hell” (Catholic belief in purgatory, versus Protestant disbelief). Just want to reiterate how great this is Through the use of antithesis, Hamlet’s conflicting values of filial duty and God’s divine justice are thrown into light, as Hamlet’s moral framework intercedes his dutiful taking of revenge, which would forsake Christian morality. In this scene, broken metre rather than iambic pentameter is used in, for example, “O horrible, o horrible, most horrible” to convey Hamlet’s distress and turmoil. Rather than say 'In this scene', try placing it in the context of the play. That way, you don't 'break character'; you're analysing a story! Hamlet’s words are conflicted by nonsensical binary opposites, This is the exact sort of phrase I love to use; again, no negative comments, just keep on doing this. such as taking revenge “with wings as swift as meditation”, revealing his internal conflict between taking impassioned revenge and rational action. This is further seen in Hamlet’s second soliloquy, in which Hamlet procrastinates taking or even thinking about action through tautological repetition of “Remember me!”, and by mourning his own circumstances in which he must “couple hell” and “grow not instant old”, before he resolves to take revenge upon Claudius. Just two scenes later, however, "Soon after"? "Following this specific event"? Again, I would stray away from 'two scenes later', plus you get to show your knowledge of the plot! Hamlet repudiates this resolve, instead deciding to act in the manner of a rational Renaissance man, stating, “I’ll have grounds more relative than this”, and thus remaining “unpregnant” of his cause. In this way, Hamlet’s introspective nature defies traditional revenge tragedy expectations, as is highlighted through the use of dramatic foil. Laertes, whose rash nature and definitive Medieval values align with those of a traditional revenge hero. This sentence starts, but doesn't end This is further reinforced in Hamlet’s soliloquy after the Mousetrap, in which the setting of midnight and the imagery of “drinking hot blood” suggests that unnatural acts will take place, leading the audience to expect Hamlet to finally take revenge. However, unlike Laertes who vows to “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i’th’church”, Hamlet does not kill Claudius, who he believes is praying and so will “send to heaven”, and instead talks with his mother. Try to be more succinct when going through plot; you don't need to recount, just place, in time. Thus, Hamlet’s conflicting values of duty and morality create an internal conflict, as his Renaissance moral code prevents him from taking blind Medieval revenge. It is not until he resolves these conflicts at the end of the play that he can find peace and gain control over his life.

Brilliant paragraph. My only comment is that a strong thesis is not coming through to the extent that I think it could, and that is simply a result of the text not being a response to a specific question. Try working the paragraph to a number of questions, and just make sure that it still works in that context. That being said, I have no doubt you'll be able to succeed!

Disillusioned by his corrupted world, and idolising Horatio as an autonomous and rational “man  that is not passion’s slave”, Hamlet is driven to regain reason and control of his circumstances through forging a distinct identity from the Court through defying social conventions. He attempts empowerment from the beginning of the play, through distinguishing himself by defying social conventions. Repetition of 'social conventions': Avoid! He insists on wearing his “inky cloak” of mourning which stands out from the crowd, and makes use of wit and wordplay to inject his words with hidden meanings, with one of his opening lines, “aye madam, it is common”, being a pun and implying what he believes are Gertrude’s loose sexual morals. So? How is this specific quote relevant to your argument? Hamlet’s short, staccato syllables and witty remarks strike discord with the steady rhythm and melodious tone of Claudius’ blank verse, and his puns parody Claudius’ verbose and superficial language, riddled with incompatible binaries such as “mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage” which allude to Claudius’ hypocrisy. In this way, Hamlet attempts to empower himself over his corrupt surroundings, with his distinctive characterisation effectively thwarting Claudius’ attempts at control. Through the accumulation of images, “'Tis not alone my inky cloak, … / Nor windy suspiration of forced breath, / Nor the fruitful river in the eye … That can denote me truly. / For they are actions that a man might play”, Hamlet reveals his complex understanding of the power of acting, and appearance versus reality. Thus, true to the conventions of a revenge tragedy, Hamlet puts on an “antic disposition” persuade those in the Court that he is a ‘harmless madman’, differentiated by his odd clothes and cryptic speech, in attempts to gain autonomy and control as he can defy social conventions and speak his true thoughts. However, despite this new resolve, Hamlet fails to gain the control, reason and legitimate sense of identity he strives for. This comes to a climax in his Act 2 soliloquy, in which his exclamation “oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I” reveals his intense internal struggle. Hamlet juxtaposes his own inability to take control and enact revenge with the ease of expression of the actor in conveying his character’s father’s death. His changes in tone, from peaks of rage, “O bloody, bawdy villain”, to profound depression, “I, a dull and muddy-mettled rascal”, to introspection, “who does me this”, show that despite his best efforts, Hamlet has not found identity and control in taking autonomy from fate.

The problem is that I don't have much to comment on. Your analysis is fantastic, your techniques are complex, your language is on point. Your main flaw at this stage is building a thesis between paragraphs, but you couldn't really have done that without a question.

Hamlet’s sense of purpose and identity is clouded as he attempts to uphold a high moral code in a corrupted world. How is the world corrupt? This preoccupation with morality spans the duration of the play, with Hamlet himself betraying his own Renaissance value system in moments of passionate action. I used a similar thesis in my HSC year. I think it would be clever to make clear the significance of what you're saying; Hamlet does not procrastinate (as every single student in NSW will claim); he merely underwent metamorphosis in a different sense than the classical 'action'. In conforming to this convention, he is BETRAYING himself. He is not a serial procrastinator; his values are just antipodes to the modern ethos. Due to his context in Medieval Denmark of puritan Catholicism, Hamlet idolises the perceived moral purity of the female characters in the play, Ophelia and Gertrude; with Ophelia being characterised by Hamlet as “the celestial, the most beautified” manifestation of purity, and Gertrude, before Hamlet senior’s death, being “like Niobe – all tears”. Thus, after Gertrude’s speedy marriage and “incestuous desire” with Claudius, Hamlet begins to distrust everyone, especially women. He sees Ophelia’s ‘betrayal’ of Hamlet to Polonius in returning his “remembrances” as the ultimate corruption of purity, as shown through the balanced sentence, “the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty to bawd, than  the force of honesty can translate beauty into his likeness”. Thus, he loses the moral control and rationality he strives for, verbally abusing Ophelia through the highly sexualised biblical allusions of all women being corrupted like Eve, the “breeder of sinners”. Similarly Hamlet loses control when trying to reason with Gertrude, killing Polonius in her bedchamber and showing little remorse. Outwardly, perhaps, but doesn't his entire demeanor change following the exchange? This reflects Renaissance humanist ideas of the dangers of free will as a corrupting force upon humanity. Hamlet’s irrational action stems mainly from Hamlet’s disillusionment of the Machiavellian corruption of his world, as shown through the motive of corruption and decay in the imagery of Denmark as a “rotten” and “unweeded garden”. This is emphasised in the likening of the State to the dead  body of King Hamlet, using synecdoche of Denmark’s “ear” “rankly abused”. Hamlet lurches between rationality, inaction, and passionate action, reaching a point of stasis as his moral code simultaneously prevents Hamlet from taking meaningful action, and spurring rash and violent action. It is only when Hamlet constructs a defined personal identity and justifies his revenge through Divine Providence, as a tragic hero, “born to set it right” that he can actively take revenge and purge Denmark of corruption.

Hamlet’s fears of inaction are compounded through his thoughts on mortality, in which he defies socially accepted thought by questioning the moral legitimacy of suicide. From the outset of the play, Hamlet’s discontent is evident, with his first soliloquy using the hyperbole of “Oh that this too too solid flesh would melt” to express his own keen desire to die. The use of elongated vowel sounds conveys his desperation and hatred of the world and his desire for suicide, which he likens to a sleep with connotations of rest and renewal. Plosives in “Fie on’t, ah fie” further reinforce Hamlet’s desperate discontent with the corruption of Denmark, shown through the metaphor “’tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed”. This brooding sense of mortality endures throughout all five acts, coming to a climax in Hamlet’s famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy. The entire soliloquy is riddled with caesuras, reflecting Hamlet’s conflict between action and inaction; Hamlet feels as if the only way he can take control of his circumstances is “to take arms against a sea of troubles” and end his life. Bloody hell, that's some good stuff. I love overcomplicating an essay; that's how I got all of my marks Linguistic contrast in “tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” contrasts passive language, “suffer”, with more active language of “take arms”; further reinforcing Hamlet’s conflict between passionate action and reasoned inaction which leads to Hamlet’s stasis. Repetition is used in “To die to sleep, to sleep perchance to dream”, to liken death to sleep, with connotations of rest and renewal. He eventually realises, however, with the unlikely series of coincidences in the pirate ship, that “there is a divinity that shapes our ends”, and draws upon the failed experience of Claudius and Polonius, of “purposes mistook, fallen on th’inventors heads”, using ironic reversal to convey that those who attempt to control their own fate will ultimately fail. This reflects that Hamlet is an Aristotelian Tragic Hero, unable to control his fate due to the Elizabethan concept of the Great Chain of Being, in which all objects on earth constitute an unbreakable hierarchy towards God. It can be seen through the ceasing of Hamlet’s long and anguished soliloquies, coupled with his renewed eloquence, rationality, monosyllabic language, and his use of the metonym “this is I / Hamlet the Dane”, that Hamlet has re-established his identity and found clarity and a sense of purpose and control. Hamlet’s last words, “the rest is silence”, reflect that the emotional ‘noise’ and turmoil that Hamlet has experienced has disappeared as Hamlet has found true peace.

+ conclusion (I generally don't write a conclusion to my generic essays, but rather make them up on the spot according to the specific question)


Look, there's not much I can say. Practice working it to a thesis, cut down the word count a little, and keep on doing what you're doing. Congratulations on a fantastic essay.

Can I just say, to jakesilove and all the other national moderators, your feedback is so helpful and detailed - how do you have the time to read through every essay so thoroughly?? Do you get paid?? 

[jakesilove]

Can I just say, to jakesilove and all the other national moderators, your feedback is so helpful and detailed - how do you have the time to read through every essay so thoroughly?? Do you get paid?? 

I'm glad that you're getting so much out of the forums Part of our job at Atar Notes is to monitor and deal with the forums, but honestly it's usually so much fun that the whole 'job' thing doesn't even come into play. I feel like I had a lot of support in Year 12, and it's only fair that I pay that forward!

[lozil]

I'm glad that you're getting so much out of the forums Part of our job at Atar Notes is to monitor and deal with the forums, but honestly it's usually so much fun that the whole 'job' thing doesn't even come into play. I feel like I had a lot of support in Year 12, and it's only fair that I pay that forward!

Awesome, you guys help a lot!

[Emerald99]

 Your advice is so helpful, thank you so much Jake!!!

[MCgunem]

Hello, my name is Ryan and I was hoping that I could have the steaming piles of garbage some would call essay marked. It'll be fairly obvious that I'm not good at  English. I'm not expecting to get an amazing in English so even if you could help me get these to a quality worth 70% or over I'd be over the moon.

Thanks in advance.

[marynguyen18]

i was wondering if someone has done Mod A: Pride and Prejudice and Letters to Alice to help me out with my essay and give me any feedback, much appreciated since its my weakest module.

[zachary99]

hey guys i need some help so i was wondering if you just check out my into (NOT a whole essay cause i know i dont have the 15 posts thing yet) and provide some feedback? Thanks
Mod C - People and politics
Q: Representations of people and politics inevitably involve the representation of important values. --- Evaluate this view

Individual motivations for control and the outworking of political action inevitably represent important human values. The values of immorality surrounding the pursuit of power and selflessness in ones actions are clearly portrayed through the representation of people and politics. Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel Brave New World (1932) and John Halax's animation Animal Farm (1954) both inevitably express important beliefs and morals as they represent the political ambitions of individuals. These ideas are depicted through the use of literary techniques and animation devices. Audiences are confronted with the portayal of juxtaposed values as the notion of political control and governance are represented.
.

[elysepopplewell]

Hello, my name is Ryan and I was hoping that I could have the steaming piles of garbage some would call essay marked. It'll be fairly obvious that I'm not good at  English. I'm not expecting to get an amazing in English so even if you could help me get these to a quality worth 70% or over I'd be over the moon.

Thanks in advance.

Hi there! We'd love to give you a hand, but we do require you have 15 posts before you get a full piece marked (you can read more about this in the link in my signature below) but you can absolutely post your thesis statement or any ideas you aren't sure about in our thesis statement thread over here so that we can give you some opinions in the mean time!

hey guys i need some help so i was wondering if you just check out my into (NOT a whole essay cause i know i dont have the 15 posts thing yet) and provide some feedback? Thanks

Hey there! You're so close to 15 posts! Will definitely take a look at this now

Mod C - People and politics
Q: Representations of people and politics inevitably involve the representation of important values. --- Evaluate this view Great question!

Individual motivations for control and the outworking of political action inevitably represents important human values. The values This is being super fussy, but you just ended a sentence with "values" and started the next with "values" - you do split it up with "the" so it's ok, but I think for guaranteed clarity and flow, I'd reconsider the wording of immorality surrounding the pursuit of power and selflessness in ones actions are clearly portrayed through the representation of people and politics. Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel Brave New World (1932) and John Halax's animation Animal Farm (1954) both inevitably express important beliefs and morals as they represent the political ambitions of individuals. These ideas are depicted through the use of literary techniques and animation devices. Audiences are confronted with the portayal of juxtaposed values as the notion of political control and governance are represented.

I thin this is really great because you've identified several types of values, and linked to the idea of people and politics really well throughout, without ever sounding repetitive. I know you're going to talk about immorality, pursuit of power, and selflessness. So I know what is yet to come! In saying that, the sentence about literary techniques and animation devices appears unnecessary. Unless your intention is to juxtapose the intentional differences in medium, then it isn't needed. If you are trying to highlight the differences in medium, I'd be inclined to give each text their own sentence and tag onto the end their medium and a specific idea they bring to the table about people and politics. Hopefully this helps!

[elysepopplewell]

Module C Essay - attached
Hello. Can you please check my essay, I'm not a very good essay writer, and I want to know how I can improve my essay and what I can change.
Texts - Wag the Dog and The Island (Related)
Thank You

Hey there! On the forums, we only have one limitation to a service, and that is the requirement of 15 posts to get a full essay or creative marked. I think you'll be surprised how quickly you'll make it to 15 posts! You can read more about the service in the link in my signature. By all means though, post a paragraph or thesis statement for feedback, without any post requirement

[BPunjabi]

Hey there! On the forums, we only have one limitation to a service, and that is the requirement of 15 posts to get a full essay or creative marked. I think you'll be surprised how quickly you'll make it to 15 posts! You can read more about the service in the link in my signature. By all means though, post a paragraph or thesis statement for feedback, without any post requirement

Im getting really confused now? I have posted my module response twice and It has not been responded to in four days.... i dont mean to be rude, but I am counting on these responses as the base ideas for my answers. Zachary99 posted after me so... If no one wants to mark it please tell me, so I dont waste my time waiting for a response.

[elysepopplewell]

Im getting really confused now? I have posted my module response twice and It has not been responded to in four days.... i dont mean to be rude, but I am counting on these responses as the base ideas for my answers. Zachary99 posted after me so... If no one wants to mark it please tell me, so I dont waste my time waiting for a response.

I will mark yours today BPunjabi. We held lectures over the weekend for HSC students which has caused a back log, I just marked the short ones between my Uni classes today and I'm saving your longer one for after my tutorial today so I can give you the proper time needed to mark a full length essay. Your work will be marked in the coming hours, I've started on it but felt like I needed to wait until I had proper time to allocate to you to give you the best feedback possible. It's coming!