Paper 2 Discussion (Advanced)

[Ishodinkha17]

Isho Dinkha - St Dominics College Kingswood

Absolutely easiest exam ever! Band 6!

Studies of Religion | English Advanced | Society and Culture | French Extension | English Extension | Legal Studies

[Emturneround]

Module B was sooooo bad. I hadn't even read Among School Children ... 🤣 It's a long poem!! Ain't nobody got time for dat! RIP to my English mark haha... 

[chelseam]

I was really happy with the Mod A and C questions, but Mod B threw me off a little! So glad that they specified Sadat though, my favourite speech to discuss by far

[Godmaste]

Did anyone do Wit and Donne for Mod A? How valid is arguing that love is portrayed through ones love for life in one of the paragraphs haha? I did love in relationships for the other 2 paras.

[mjorfian]

dw i did similar
argued the statement moderately accurate
said that kane was void of genuine love but his sense of loneliness and regret at the end of the film was genuine
said this all was the strength of the film not weakness as like you said it contributed to its enduring value to audiences of welles' time and today

yay! thanks for the reassurance LMAOO. i don't remember if i explicitly said moderately accurate or nah but i did direct it to the statement using the words so should be alright. fingers crossed for results day

[willfisch]

I don't know if I answered the mod B question properly (Cloudstreet). My whole argument was that ordinary people have the power to change their weaknesses to strengths. let me know what you guys think ?

[asd987]

Magi for mod b wtf... worst poem that could be asked
Mod A was good, Mod C eh alright

[bimberfairy]

MOD B (Speeches): In preparation for this extremely unforgiving module I was VERY paranoid. Specifying a speech in itself, led me to memorising quotes, techniques and context for all 7 of the speeches; equating upwards of 100 in total. To make it worse, I feared either a very specific conceptual question, or them asking to use 3 speeches. Thankfully, and quite humorously, they did none of this . I was beyond relieved to see that they asked for Sadat, and I'm sure that the vast majority of us doing this elective would have felt a little more comfortable with the question. I picked Pearson (by far my favourite of them all), but I did consider using Atwood too (2nd favourite, would have worked well too). My argument was that a balance of manipulating rhetoric and discussing substance made speech an effective medium to incite meaningful change, rather than a diminution of content. Agreeing with the question seemed to require so much more effort (which I had 0 to spare lol).

I approached the question similarly to how you did too! I felt like it was way too much effort to agree with the question and have to prove the second half of the statement, so I also argued that an equal balance of rhetoric and substance within the speech was way more effective for the speaker to convey their purpose or intentions.

[allaadareb_]

Mod B T.S Eliot was the worst for me. Seriously, Journey of the Magi? I was praying they wouldn't specify but obviously they had to!!!!

[bimberfairy]

I was really happy with the Mod A and C questions, but Mod B threw me off a little! So glad that they specified Sadat though, my favourite speech to discuss by far

Hahaha, for my grade, it was the total opposite!! You could hear the collective groans and laughter when we all realised that Sadat was specified. It was like everyone's hearts broke just a little bit more LOL

[JTrudeau]

Honestly I think I did better in Modules than Discovery. Jake's essay plan strategy was honestly a godsend and it worked out for all 3 questions.

A, Richard -- Inferiority seems like such an odd value I was totally caught off guard. It probably referred to female frailty, but I tweaked it slightly and talked about moral inferiority (Richard v Richmond) and Richard's self-proclaimed superiority that entitles him to break from God's Divine Order. Whereas Pacino's a lot more subtle about the Richard/Richmond divide.

B, Speeches -- Hallelujah it's a Political Speech. I did Sadat and Keating, talking about the "substance" being its impact on society in the future. Sadat got the Camp-David Accords and Egypt-Israel peace treaty signed, whereas Howard came along and ruined Keating's attempts with his black armband history nonsense. I feel like the question was trying to get us to use Deane, and also argue that some of them don't have textual integrity (which goes against the module's purpose??)

C, Brave New World -- Everything political involves some kind of conflict of opinion, thank god. I did a meta and talked about how the composers were using their texts to try and protest the status quo perspectives in their own society-- Huxley's concerns of technology v society's "all technological progress is good"

It wasn't the best paper, but I found it overall manageable

[carolinewang206]

Happy with mods A and C! I wrote about 8 pages for each. I think they were fairly legible.. Mod B killed me though. I'm not even sure if the paradigms I used were right? I focused my paradigms around the narrative voice and discussed them differently in relation to strengths and weaknesses. For example one of them was Eliot's rich use of intertextuality within his poetry, then went on to talk about how that enhances its meaning as it creates a greater synergetic value but talked about it as a weakness because it makes his poetry less accessible?? The other paradigms I used were about religion and the personal voice and I'm not really sure if that was right! Honestly not sure what going to happen for mod b! I wrote about 7 pages though

[Dylpickle01]

I feel like the question was trying to get us to use Deane, and also argue that some of them don't have textual integrity (which goes against the module's purpose??)

Same! When I first read the question, I was super tempted to go ahead and blast Deane's speech, ultimately I decided against it. Like you said, it really wouldn't make sense to argue that it has no integrity; especially when all it does is seek to further one's diplomatic power 

[Dylpickle01]

Hahaha, for my grade, it was the total opposite!! You could hear the collective groans and laughter when we all realised that Sadat was specified. It was like everyone's hearts broke just a little bit more LOL

So many people I knew didn't go back over Sadat in their study because they either hated it, or thought that NESA wouldn't specify it because it's the first text in the list. I hope they ended up ok! 

[Dylpickle01]

I approached the question similarly to how you did too! I felt like it was way too much effort to agree with the question and have to prove the second half of the statement, so I also argued that an equal balance of rhetoric and substance within the speech was way more effective for the speaker to convey their purpose or intentions.

Oh awesome! Great minds think alike
Which speech did you use to supplement Sadat? I wonder how common our thesis was