Medea Reading and Responding Essay

[HopefulLawStudent]

The following is my attempt at a reading and responding essay for Medea. If the task was to butcher a text response, stumbling my way through it and coming out on the other side praying for divine intervention to help me get the study score I need/want to lift my ATAR, I think I succeeded. VCE English is a learning curve I'm still trying to scale having lost all recollection of Year 11 English over ther summer holidays.

Please, please, please. Could someone offer me feedback on this?

Alsoooo... If it wouldn't be too much of a hassle (I know I'm asking for a lot as is), could you give me a mark out of 10? Be as harsh as you would like. I'm hoping what'll happen is to see some sort of increase as I burn through more essays and get more confident with the material and get back into essay writing.

Medea is a tragedy of uncontrolled passion. Discuss.

Exploring the position of a woman entangled in a phallocentric society as she sought to reprise the “cruel blow” that had been inflicted upon her, Euripides’ Medea explores the human psyche and the way in which one’s condition and sentiments may serve as an impetus for great action. The tragedy that unfolds within the play was, to a limited extent, manufactured by the “passionate grief” of Jason’s aggrieved wife as she sought retribution for the “blow” Jason “dared to do to” her. To a broader extent, Euripides censures a life driven solely by extremity, be it passion or otherwise; the dramatist condemns an absence of constraint in life, cautioning the audience of Athenian men of the dangers that lie in such a standard of living.

Dionysian reactions precipitated a violent corollary for Jason’s “cruel blow” unto Medea that closes the play. The Nurse’s opening lamentations in the prologue establishes, from the very outset of the play, the protagonist’s propensity for violence in the name of passion, recollecting the events hitherto as original audiences would have known them. The Nurse employs the analogy of a “wild bull” to convey the potential potency of absolutely “spurn[ing]” rationality for intense feeling. Likened to a “rock or wave of the sea”, Medea is rendered as one immovable in her despondence and despair as she “dissolve[d] the long hours in tears.” A disembodied voice wails from within Medea’s house invoking the Goddess of justice to witness the wrong purportedly performed unto her, Medea is portrayed as a stricken and aggrieved former wife of Jason, eliciting the pathos of the audience who were impelled to recognise the direness of her circumstance. This impression remains within the foreground of the audience’s mind, overshadowing the play’s narrative and precluding them from readily delegating blame to Medea and her passions, despite the naturally reprehensible nature of her “crime”. Medea’s emotions ultimately drive her to murder four individuals, each harbouring a varying degree of culpability and significance to Medea. Her abhorrence and aversion to Medea prompts Medea to “anoint” her ostensible largess with “deadly poison”. The poisoned “coronet” to which the “frightening woman” refers to is a symbol for a corrupted government, serving as her diatribe against this patriarchal societal order in which one man’s authority can override justice, condemning a woman whose only crime was possessing unrequited love. This establishes her murder of Glauce, and, to a greater extent, Creon, who was effectively the pinnacle of Hellenic life, as a statement against this calcified social structure in which a man’s wants and needs overrode those of his subjects and what was ‘right’; audiences may thus infer she committed their murders out of hatred and detestation. The murder of her sons, the play’s namesake portrays as an act of love. She never openly revels in the “curse of children’s blood”, instead describing the filicide that closes the play as a “frontier of despair” and an event that will cause her to “suffer twice as much” as her former husband but one she “must” perform if she wishes to save her sons from the ire of her enemies. Her use of the term “must” alludes to her sense of inexorableness and sense of obligation to deliver her sons to untimely ends. Euripides contends passion has a potential to inflict great harm and violence; he establishes Medea’s retribution for the “cruel blow” her husband had performed unto her was ostensibly manufactured by her passionate reactions.

It was, however, an Apollonian attitude that fabricated the circumstances that provoked Medea’s impassioned reactions. Jason’s unequivocal subscription to reason and rationality may be observed by the syntax of his sentences. Distinctly prefacing new ideas and lines of reasoning with sentence starters such as “moreover” and “to begin with” and employing laconic sentences, Jason seeks to portray his argument as carefully constructed and calculated; the product of much cogitation and little emotional spontaneity. Jason’s Apollonian view of the world is amplified by his cool labelling of his former relationship as nothing more than a “service” rendered, thereby diminishing the import and nature of their love and insinuating their matrimony meant little to him. Audiences may infer his employment of this term was a means through which he sought to garner validation for a decision he recognised was inherently reprehensible. His decision to divorce the “frightening woman” he had wedded, Euripides intimates was purely strategic and logical. Euripides alludes to Jason’s lack of Dionysian passion for his “young bride”. “She has killed the King”, Jason pronounces; this statement is succeeded by the supplementary remark of “And the princess” as though his wife’s untimely demise was merely a minor nuisance, insinuating Jason’s connubial vows to Glauce were spoken out of “new love” not for his bride but for all he had to gain through her. Possessing a hamartia interlinked with their equanimity and logic is consistent among the male characters in the play; this would have been expected and understandable to the exclusively male audience of the period who had been conditioned to foreground reason above all else. Employing concise and blunt sentences,  Creon is initially firm and seemingly calcified in his resolve to ensure Medea is extricated from his territory. Employing the “middle way”, Medea is able to inspire the king to defer his edict despite having previously acknowledged she was “clever” and “it’s foolish” to allow her to remain. To this end, Creon exhibits elements characteristic of “the middle way”; he is driven by his anxieties which propel him to discern the danger Medea poses but it is his rationality and psyche that is fatally victorious. Similarly, Aegeus is manipulated by his “old friend” who censors her story in order garner his pathos and empathy in order to galvanise him to promise her security in Athens. The King’s promise of “sanctuary” – protection for someone being chased or hunted – connotes he was, to some extent, acting not out of reason, but out of passion as he sought to secure his progeny, suggesting he harboured suspicions regarding Medea’s motives for seeking safety but was willing to overlook these reservations on account for the promised denouement of his sterility. In the case of the kings, their reason enabled them to rationalise their decisions at great personal cost to themselves. Euripides seeks to establish the danger in subscribing wholeheartedly to reason; the narrative serves as a cautionary tale outlining the potential dangers that lie inherently in opting to abide by a single extremity.

Ultimately, Medea outlines the peril in subscribing to passion alone, labelling it “folly”. Euripides thereby endorses a life led by “the middle way, neither great nor mean”, impugning the prevalent Athenian view an Apollonian view was quintessential to life. Performed at a religious festival in Ancient Greece, this lifestyle appears to have the approbation of the Gods who “bring [justice] to surprising ends” in response to the supplications of Medea, the Chorus and the Nurse for divine intervention. Through this – a reality Hellenic viewers would wholeheartedly believed in, the dramatist implies humanly affairs are subject to the scrutiny of the Gods who delegated justice as they saw fit. Therein lies the greatest tragedy of Medea. Though she was able to reprise Jason’s “cruel blow” it came at a great personal cost to herself as she was forced to “stain” her fingers with “kindred blood”, “suffer[ing] twice as much” as her victim in the process.

Edit: I remembered last night that formatting doesn't transfer directly onto a message. I went through and underlined the title of the play here where appropriate.

Please note: Plagiarism is bad for the soul. Yes, my work is publicly available on this network we call the internet but I will never condone copying and pasting the work of another. Make the right choice, guys.

With SACs coming up for 2016, a huge reminder that plagiarising work posted in this board is simply not on.  Cheating is simply a bit below the AN forum, which only works because of its principles of integrity, generosity, and just plain honest good form. Please don't disappoint us by showing that you, too, are below this forum.

And anyway, ATARNotes content does show up in Google searches, and any member of the public may freely browse this forum without needing to sign up first. You might not realise, but plagiarised writing or speaking is often very, very obvious to a teacher, so unless your teacher hasn't heard of Google before, there is a very high probability you will get caught if you plagiarise anything found on this website for your orals or essays. 

[/b]

[literally lauren]

Medea is a tragedy of uncontrolled passion. Discuss.

Exploring the position of a woman entangled in a phallocentric 'patriarchal' is a more accurate word here society as she sought to reprise the “cruel blow” that had been inflicted upon her, Euripides’ Medea explores the human psyche and the way in which one’s condition and sentiments not sure what you're referring to here. 'Condition' kind of makes sense, but are you using 'sentiments' in the context of one's inner perceptions and perspectives? Might just be a word choice thing, but this is bogging down your opening sentence a bit may serve as an impetus for great action. The tragedy that unfolds within the play was, to a limited extent, manufactured by the “passionate grief” of Jason’s aggrieved wife as she sought retribution for the “blow” Jason “dared to do to” her. To a broader extent, Euripides censures a life driven solely by extremity, be it passion or otherwise; the dramatist condemns an absence of constraint in life, cautioning the audience of Athenian men of the dangers that lie in such a standard of living. Awesome views and values statement, and great way to close the intro. Contention is coming across nice and strong here, and the link to the prompt is really clear, so great job!

Dionysian reactions precipitated a violent corollary simplicity > sophistication when it comes to topic sentences. Based on these first few words, I don't know what your focussing on. Discussing 'dionysian reactions' is a bit too far removed from this prompt, and using those words to front your sentence means that your reader is instantly thrown off balance for Jason’s “cruel blow” unto Medea that closes the play. The Nurse’s opening lamentations in the prologue establishes, woah, wait, so we've gone from the ending of the play to the beginning of the play? Why did your topic sentence stipulate that the ending was your focus? from the very outset of the play, the protagonist’s propensity for violence in the name of passion, recollecting the events hitherto as original audiences would have known them this sentence is incomplete. 'The protagonist's propensity for violence... what?' You need a verb here, like 'The protagonist's propensity for violence is made evident to the audience.'. The Nurse employs the analogy of a “wild bull” to convey the potential potency of absolutely “spurn[ing]” rationality for intense feeling. Likened to a “rock or wave of the sea”, Medea is rendered as one immovable in her despondence and despair as she “dissolve[d] the long hours in tears.” A disembodied voice wails from within Medea’s house invoking the Goddess of justice to witness the wrong purportedly performed unto her, thus Medea is portrayed as a stricken and aggrieved former wife of Jason, eliciting the pathos of the audience who were use past tense to talk about events in the text, and present tense when making interpretive statements like this. Alternatively, just keep a consistent present tense throughout impelled to recognise the direness of her circumstance. This impression remains within the foreground of the audience’s mind, overshadowing the play’s narrative and precluding them from readily delegating blame to Medea and her passions, despite the naturally reprehensible nature of her “crime.” Medea’s emotions ultimately drive her to murder four individuals, it seems a bit odd to talk about people's reaction to her crime before then explaining the crime itself - the order of your information is a bit confusing here each harbouring a varying degree of culpability and significance to Medea. Her back to the nurse, I'm assuming? Or are you talking about Glauce here? That was a few sentences ago, so using the same pronoun makes it seem like you're talking about Medea's abhorrence and aversion to herself abhorrence and aversion to Medea prompts Medea to “anoint” her ostensible largess with “deadly poison”. The poisoned “coronet” to which the “frightening woman” refers to is a symbol for a corrupted government, serving as her diatribe against this patriarchal societal order in which one man’s authority can override justice, condemning a woman whose only crime was possessing unrequited love awesome sentence . This establishes her murder of Glauce, and, to a greater extent, Creon if Creon is the one who demonstrates your point more, why isn't he your focus here?, who was effectively the pinnacle of Hellenic life, as a statement against this calcified social structure in which a man’s wants and needs overrode those of his subjects and what was ‘right’; audiences may thus infer she Medea committed their murders out of hatred and detestation. The murder of her sons, the play’s namesake huh? The play's called 'Medea,' not 'Medea's sons' Not sure what you're trying to say here portrays as an act of love. She never openly revels in the “curse of children’s blood”, instead describing the filicide that closes the play as a “frontier of despair” and an event that will cause her to “suffer twice as much” as her former husband but one she “must” perform if she wishes to save her sons from the ire of her enemies. v. good. Her use of the term “must” alludes to her sense of inexorableness and sense of obligation to deliver her sons to untimely ends. <linking word here would be good>Euripides contends passion has a potential to inflict great harm and violence; he establishes Medea’s retribution for the “cruel blow” her husband had performed unto her was ostensibly manufactured by her passionate reactions. good para conclusion, and I love your close analysis of language here. Just try not to overuse the "cruel blow" quote; that's the third time it's come up already.

It was, however, an Apollonian attitude that fabricated this word implies deceit or falsehood - doesn't quite fit here unless you're trying to suggest that the circumstances that provoked Medea weren't real? the circumstances that provoked Medea’s impassioned reactions. Jason’s unequivocal subscription to reason and rationality may be observed by the syntax of his sentences. Distinctly prefacing new ideas and lines of reasoning with sentence starters such as “moreover” and “to begin with” and employing laconic sentences, Jason seeks to portray his argument as carefully constructed and calculated; the product of much cogitation and little emotional spontaneity excellent analysis here. Jason’s Apollonian view of the world is amplified by his cool labelling of his former relationship as nothing more than a “service” rendered, thereby diminishing the import and nature of their love and insinuating their matrimony meant little to him. Audiences may infer his employment of this term was a means through which he sought to garner validation for a decision he recognised was inherently reprehensible. His decision to divorce the “frightening woman” he had wedded, Euripides intimates comma needed here was purely strategic and logical. v. good points. Euripides linking word? also? likewise? alludes to Jason’s lack of Dionysian passion for his “young bride”. “She has killed the King”, Jason pronounces; this statement try to integrate this quote properly is succeeded by the supplementary remark of “And the princess” as though his wife’s untimely demise was merely a minor nuisance, good point insinuating Jason’s connubial vows to Glauce were spoken out of “new love” not for his bride but for all he had to gain through her. Possessing a hamartia interlinked with their equanimity and logic is consistent among the male characters in the play you've got lovely ideas here, but the trouble is that you're using complex language as well as a complex sentence structure, and doing both at once is a little bit risky; this would have been expected and understandable to the exclusively male audience of the period who had been conditioned to foreground reason above all else don't feel obliged to make these statements about the audience too often. The prompt doesn't explicitly call for it, and you don't want it to come across as moving too far outside the text. In this case, the stuff your analysing is contributing to your argument more sos than this point about the audience is. Employing concise and blunt sentences,  Creon is initially firm and seemingly calcified in his resolve to ensure Medea is extricated from his territory. Employing the “middle way”, Medea is able to inspire the king to defer his edict despite having previously acknowledged she was “clever” and “it’s that it would be "foolish” to allow her to remain. To this end, Creon exhibits elements characteristic of “the middle way”; he is driven by his anxieties which propel him to discern the danger Medea poses but it is his rationality and psyche that is fatally victorious I get the gist here, but it sounds like a bit of an oxymoron to say his trait was fatally victorious. I believe you're insinuating that his rationality won out, and that led to his downfall? Perhaps rephrase this to 'it is his rationality that fatally wins out over more emotional considerations' or something like that. Also 'psyche' doesn't really fit the context here as that refers to ones inner mindset; it's not really directly related to the idea of rational thought. Similarly, Aegeus is manipulated by his “old friend” who censors her story in order to garner his pathos and empathy in order to galvanise him to promise her security in Athens. The King’s promise of “sanctuary” – protection for someone being chased or hunted – connotes he was, to some extent, acting not out of reason, but out of passion as he sought to secure his progeny, suggesting he harboured suspicions regarding Medea’s motives for seeking safety but was willing to overlook these reservations on account for the promised denouement word check - this is a very literary term that's usually used when talking about the ending of a novel/play just before the resolution where all the characters come together, it doesn't really work in this context of his sterility. In the case of the kings, their reason enabled them to rationalise their decisions at great personal cost to themselves. linking word? Euripides seeks to establish the danger in subscribing wholeheartedly to reason; the narrative serves as a cautionary tale outlining the potential dangers that lie inherently in opting to abide by a single extremity 'extreme ideal/attitude/perspective' would work better here. Other than that, another solid paragraph conclusion.

Ultimately, Medea outlines the peril in subscribing to passion alone, labelling it “folly”. Euripides thereby endorses a life led by “the middle way, neither great nor mean”, impugning the prevalent Athenian view an Apollonian view expression is getting a little cluttered again was quintessential to life. Performed at a religious festival in Ancient Greece, this lifestyle appears to have the approbation of the Gods who “bring [justice] to surprising ends” in response to the supplications of Medea, the Chorus and the Nurse for divine intervention. Through this – a reality Hellenic viewers would have wholeheartedly believed in, the dramatist implies humanly affairs are subject to the scrutiny of the Gods who delegated justice as they saw fit. Therein lies the greatest tragedy of Medea. Though she was able to reprise Jason’s “cruel blow” it came at a great personal cost to herself as she was forced to “stain” her fingers with “kindred blood”, “suffer[ing] twice as much” as her victim in the process.
 Love this closer! Awesome v&v assertion that I imagine would work for quite a few prompts pertaining to justice and justifiability.

Really good job overall. A few things to note:

- The quality of your analysis is really good here, and the moments that you spend unpacking language and inferences were amazing! (Note: don't take that as a recommendation to fill your essay with this kind of analysis though! Moderation is best, and the balance you've struck here is fine.)

- I think you could've done more with the notion of uncontrolled passions though, as this read more like an essay on the prompt 'Euripides argues for a balance between reason and passion. Discuss.' Trimming down your body paragraphs to get rid of some of the decent but less relevant stuff (e.g. some of your discussion of Jason's motivations, since he's really just a counterpoint) and replacing it with a third body paragraph would help out a bit here. Ideally, you want to aim for three distinct sub-arguments, though you're pretty much at the word limit for a one hour piece already. If your SAC is >90 minutes, then you could tack on an extra body paragraph and see how you go, but for the exam, you'd need to cut down before you added more stuff in.

- The structure of your information was a little bit hard to follow in places, and it seems like individual sentences have been kind of over-constructed to the point where the original message is lost under all the other stuff contained within it. I'm loving your vocabulary, but there were a few instances where the words didn't quite fit the sentence's meaning or where the sophistication of a word clouded the overall idea of the sentence, so by all means keep experimenting and taking risks, but pay attention to the flow of your arguments and make sure you're not letting expression get in the way of your content.

- Careful with your pronouns (i.e. use of 'her,' 'she,' 'its' etc.) as there were times when it wasn't clear who or what you referring to.

With regards to your mark, this is probably sitting at about a 7-8/10 depending on how strict your teacher is about essay structure. Assuming you were able to up this to three solid body paragraphs and tidy up some issues with your expression, that number could easily rise though. I'd recommend doing an extensive essay plan where you set out the focus for each paragraph before hand just as a practice exercise. That doesn't mean you have to plan in assessment conditions, but it will hopefully help you lay out your thoughts prior to writing in a really cogent way. But on the whole, your views and values level statements and textual analysis are really good, you just need to sift out the good stuff from some of the more superfluous and less-relevant bits.

Good luck! Let me know if any of that didn't make sense

[HopefulLawStudent]

I bow down to the awesomely amazing Lauren whose brain I wish I could steal at this very moment. 

Thank you so much for your feedback. 

Question 1: If the prompt doesn't explicitly mention the audience, can we tone down the references to them? My English teacher is adamant you have to mention the audience in your essay and he scared me into going a little overboard, admittedly.

Question 2: When we're writing text responses, should we devote a paragraph to each character and do it like that? Is there a definitive structure we should be following? I've got a maths brain so I'm trying to find some formula to writing essays (ALL of my previous teachers supplied us with this rigid formula we had to follow and now that we don't have one, I'm a little scared). Or do we go based on themes? Or do we just wing it?

Question 3: So when we're writing a text response, does there have to be some form of chronology? i.e. address stuff that happened in the beginning of the story in the beginning of the paragraph/essay and conversely address the ending towards the end of your paragraph/essay?

Question 4: How many words should I be aiming for in a text response essay? Our SACs go for 96 minutes and we get the topic at the start of the SAC. My teacher said 5 - 6 paragraphs was ideal but that they couldn't be paragraphs that went on pages and pages and pages (a page-long paragraph is apparently a hit and miss to him). How many words do you think that would convert to? My teacher refuses to put a numerical value on it...

Notes to self:
- expression shouldn't get in the way of clarity
- delete unnecessary stuff
- syntax
- linking words
- past tense for events, present tense for interpretation

[literally lauren]

Question 1: If the prompt doesn't explicitly mention the audience, can we tone down the references to them? My English teacher is adamant you have to mention the audience in your essay and he scared me into going a little overboard, admittedly.

If you're teacher's a fan, then maybe do it once per paragraph in your SACs. In the exam though, you don't want to have it be a 'token' thing you bring up once every few lines or so. It's kind of like how people will write these generic background sentences for the start of their intros like 'Written in an epoch of patriarchal dominance, Euripides' Greek tragedy Medea...' and will use it every time, even if the prompt is like 'How does Euripides show the dangers of a lack of effective communication?' In general, commenting on the audience is technically a part of the criteria, and you can absolutely talk about their interpretations (esp. comparing an Ancient Greek understanding with a modern day one) so long as you don't get too far away from the text. But the prompt is your focus, so don't overdo the audience statements if you feel like they're not adding anything to your contention/discussion.

Question 2: When we're writing text responses, should we devote a paragraph to each character and do it like that? Is there a definitive structure we should be following? I've got a maths brain so I'm trying to find some formula to writing essays (ALL of my previous teachers supplied us with this rigid formula we had to follow and now that we don't have one, I'm a little scared). Or do we go based on themes? Or do we just wing it?

Themes > Characters! In terms of paragraph structures, that is.
For Medea, it's a little messy to just have one paragraph for Medea, one for Jason, and then one for... the others... incl. Glauce, Creon, Aegeus, the Nurse... whoever's relevant. Also, you instantly limit your discussion; if the prompt calls for you to discuss Medea's character in more detail (which a lot of prompts do) or if you should be comparing characters, then the whole structure falls apart.

Instead, you could go for something like:

Medea's sense of justice is warped by the society she lives in. Do you agree?

Contention: Medea's notion of right and wrong is moulded by her society, and although she struggled against these confines, ultimately this makes it hard to apply objectively moral judgements to her actions.
P1: Societal influence --> Medea's worldview was largely the product of her social standing, though she acquires a more holistic understanding as the play progresses.
P2: Subjectivity of justice --> The justifiability of characters' actions, particularly Medea's, is muddied by the cause and effect chain of events that lead to the tragic end result.
P3: Medea's priorities --> Over the course of the play, Medea's values and intentions shift in accordance with what happens around her.

^I've given some indication of potential topic sentences here too because it's not like we're going for a super-simplistic breakdown like:
1: Society
2: Justice
3: Priorities

Good arguments are more complex than that, so if each paragraph has a clear, logical link between its focus and your contention, you should be fine

Question 3: So when we're writing a text response, does there have to be some form of chronology? i.e. address stuff that happened in the beginning of the story in the beginning of the paragraph/essay and conversely address the ending towards the end of your paragraph/essay?

Sort of. It just comes down to your logic. If you make a statement like 'Medea's actions are unnjustifiable' prior to actually explaining her actions, it's a little bit weird for your reader.

Compare the following:

1) Medea's actions are unjustifiable and are perceived by the audience as being in stark contrast to what they would consider moral and sensible. When she kills her children, she is motivated by jealousy and a desire for vengeance.

2) Medea's act of filicide is motivated by jealousy and a desire for vengeance; as such, it is perceived by the audience as being in stark contrast to what they would consider moral and sensible.

(Note: this interpretation isn't really valid, but I'm giving you a fairly simplistic/ non-legitimate argument so that we can focus on the structure instead of the content.)

It's clear that Example 2. has a more logical progression from [thing in the text]-->[reasons for it occurring]-->[audience's response] as opposed to Example 1's [interpretative statement]-->[event from the text]-->[motivating force].

So it's not like there's some moratorium on analysing in the first half of your paragraph or bringing up new evidence in the second, but in terms of the structure of your individual bits of analysis, there are certain unofficial rules governing how you should present things. Does that make sense?

Question 4: How many words should I be aiming for in a text response essay? Our SACs go for 96 minutes and we get the topic at the start of the SAC. My teacher said 5 - 6 paragraphs was ideal but that they couldn't be paragraphs that went on pages and pages and pages (a page-long paragraph is apparently a hit and miss to him). How many words do you think that would convert to? My teacher refuses to put a numerical value on it...

96 minutes

...back in my day, school periods used to be nice round numbers... grumble grumble

Okay, so it sounds like your teacher favours broader arguments over deeper, narrower ones, meaning that you should plan to have four or preferably five paragraphs in your SAC. In the exam this can drop to four or three depending on your preference though.

Reeeeally rough word count: about 900 - maybe dipping as low as 800 or as high as 1200 which is roughly where you're at right now. Best thing you could do would be to time yourself about a week before the SAC and see how you go under those conditions: 96 minutes, an unseen prompt, no notes. That should give you some indication of what would be realistic for you, but don't stress too much if you hit 1000 in practice and then 800 in the SAC. Quality matters way more, and if your approach changes when the prompt changes, that's a good thing!

Hope that clears things up! Loving the feedback summaries by the way - great way to consolidate and improve

[Swagadaktal]

Yo just had a question - is it worth quoting one word quotes from the text?
I.e the use of ‘right’ - is there any point?
btw does our language need to be that sophisticated?
Because it seems like you swallowed a theasaurus (which i admire because you seem to be using so many words in the right places -- i wish I could do that) - but is it necessary?

[huehue]

Yo just had a question - is it worth quoting one word quotes from the text?
I.e the use of ‘right’ - is there any point?
btw does our language need to be that sophisticated?
Because it seems like you swallowed a theasaurus (which i admire because you seem to be using so many words in the right places -- i wish I could do that) - but is it necessary?

Your language doesn't have to be sophisticated, just as long as you use the best words to express your ideas. Look at the essays in the 2014 examiner's report for example, their word choices were simple yet they scored highly.

[literally lauren]

Yo just had a question - is it worth quoting one word quotes from the text?
I.e the use of ‘right’ - is there any point?
btw does our language need to be that sophisticated?
Because it seems like you swallowed a theasaurus (which i admire because you seem to be using so many words in the right places -- i wish I could do that) - but is it necessary?

I have indeed digested many a lexicological tome... but I make a conscious effort to avoid sentences like this one because they come across as needlessly verbose and obfuscatory.

Translation: big words don't make you sound smart unless you know how to use them properly.
Heidi's thread here has a more detailed explanation of this as well as some decent words to add to your arsenal, but in general, sophisticated writing comes from knowing what to say, not from having fancy tools or ingredients to do so. It's kind of like how a good chef or painter will be able to create an amazing product regardless of what they have at their disposal. Only the amateurs go straight for the croquembouches and thousand dollar oil paints without knowing what do do with them.

Regarding single word quotes, some teachers are iffy about them, but I think it's fine provided there's a good reason for it. You can't quote things out of context, but sometimes one word is all you need, so that's perfectly permissible so long as your teacher is okay with it.

[HopefulLawStudent]

Also: word-y question: why can't I use "phallocentric"? Aren't phallocentric and patriarchal direct synonyms? In what context would you use phallocentric in lieu/instead of patriarchal?

[literally lauren]

Also: word-y question: why can't I use "phallocentric"? Aren't phallocentric and patriarchal direct synonyms? In what context would you use phallocentric in lieu/instead of patriarchal?

They're closely related, but not quite interchangeable. Patriarchal is the more useful word when writing about texts like Medea because it can be used to describe societies that are dominated by men (or societies under which women and other 'minorities' are treated as second class citizens.) 'Phallocentricity' applies more to art and architecture and is more to do with shapes and forms as opposed to societal values. In academic circles, phallocentricity can be a synonym for patriarchy, but that tends to come across as a bit silly and extreme, so I'd stick with the latter.