Rate my AMFAS essay from 10

[Chavi]

Rate my essay from 10, and feel free to be extra harsh.  8-)
(Following on from this thread), I tried to fully attack the topic, and develop ideas by analyzing rather than summarizing. How do you think I went? Feedback welcome.  

A Man For All Seasons demonstrates that resisting authority is always futile

The concepts of authority, abuse of power and resistance, play central roles in Robert Bolt’s historical drama, 'A Man for all Seasons'. The principle authority figure, King Henry, wields absolute power to compel other characters to bend to his will. Whilst most give in out of fear or practicality, a select few such as the protagonist, Thomas More and Bishop Fisher pit themselves “against the current of their times” and resist conformity at the expense of their lives. In this sense, Bolt demonstrates the dangers of speaking out and actively resisting an authoritarian regime. Conversely, some of Henry’s hardline supporters who freely acquiesce to carry out his order face similar executions for “high treason” – highlighting the idea that nobody is safe under a tyrannical regime, regardless of whether they resist or conform. The authority of God and the pope adds a separate dynamic to the plot, as it stands in direct opposition to Henry’s delegated power as head of the Church of England. Whilst Henry successfully undermines the authority of the Catholic Church – despite his excommunication, More maintains his allegiance to the legally defunct church – which he views as inextricably linked with his religious beliefs. Therefore, regardless of his opposition to the earthly powers, More will not betray his God or his conscience – an act which he sees as personally futile, given Gods overriding “spiritual supremacy”. As a consequence, Bolt reasons that enabling and supporting a tyrannical despot is inherently futile, given that one must forego the heavenly authorities in the process. However, the ultimate futility lies in abandoning one’s rectitude and “private conscience” by bending to the will of avarice, power and greed, without resisting the “short route to chaos” that absolute authority fosters and enables.

The practical figure of authority throughout the play, King Henry, acts as a catalyst for the events of the play by instituting anticlerical policies and clamping down heavily on dissent to cement his power. Cardinal Wolsey, a secular cleric with a strong grasp of political realities, attempts to enable Henry to “change his woman” without angering the Catholic Church. Acceding that “The King needs a son,” Wolsey is prepared to manipulate religion in order to avoid a “change of dynasty” that may lead to bloodshed. Clearly lacking any sense of moral obligation, Wolsey “forsakes his own private conscience for the sake of public duties” to comply with the King’s wishes. Despite this, the slow pace of his religious reforms incurs the impatience and wrath of Henry, and Wolsey dies on the way to The Tower: “his effective cause of death: the king’s displeasure”. Whilst Wolsey’s practical loyalty to the crown is evident, he is still sentenced to death, demonstrating that active resistance is not a prerequisite to incur the anger of authority.

Unlike Wolsey, Cromwell acts as “the king’s ear”, and benefits from a closer relationship with Henry as the implementer of his capricious policies. Cromwell, together with his protégé, Richard Rich, act as Henry’s willing executioners – carrying out his orders without question or scruples. Indeed, Bolt utilizes these characters to critique the act of blindly following authority at the expense of one’s “soul” and “personal conscience”. Realizing the perils of “walking the short route to chaos”, Crowell meekly prophesises that “if I bring about More’s death, I plant my own, I think.” This prophesy portends his execution for “high treason” following the events of the play. Ironically, whilst he stands in stark contrast to More’s righteousness and “adamantine” grasp of moral duties, Cromwell, as the play’s “dockside bully” who corrupts everything around him for the sake of “administrative convenience,” still suffers the same fate as those like More who resist Henry’s authority. The principle reason for this is Cromwell’s corruption of the law – which serves to protect citizens from the will of hegemony. In the same way that More is unable to find safety in the “thickets of the law”, Crowell “plants his [own] death” by turning it into Henry’s personal “instrument”. Thus, Bolt demonstrates the futility of enabling authority whilst foregoing morality. By “finding the right law or making one,” and carrying out Henry’s wishes, Cromwell destroys his own personal avenue of resistance, when he too is sent to The Tower.

The few characters who actively take a stand against Henry are cruelly and promptly executed as “traitors” – indicative of their lack of allegiance to the King’s policies. Whilst such resistance can be construed as futile – as little is seemingly achieved by their deaths, the simple act of resistance against tyranny is praised by Bolt as “heroic”. Evidently, More’s refusal to sacrifice his integrity despite the pressure to do so eventuates in his posthumous canonization as a saint. Indeed, More’s support for the King will only go so “far as the law of God allows” – highlighting the fact that he considers the authority of God as far more important than that of the temporal world. Whilst More is portrayed as “the King’s true subject”, he still accedes that he belongs to “God first”. Considering that Henry rescinds his connection with the pope and the heavenly authority that More believes in – his simple act of ‘belief’ is enough to brand More a traitor and equate his actions with resistance. This angers Henry who will “brook no opposition”, and More together with Bishop Fisher are destroyed because they refuse to “bend to the marriage”. On face value, More’s “opposition” only achieves heartache and poverty for his family who are intimidated into “leaving the country”. Alice senses the futility of More’s stand when she wails that “I don’t believe this had to happen”, whilst Meg urges her father to give up his struggle by “[saying] the words of the oath … but in [his] heart [thinking] otherwise”. In reality, Meg understand her father’s inexorable choice and “the secrets of [his] heart, whilst Alice concedes that his is “the best man [she’s] ever met or [is] likely to”, thus indicating the tact rapport she holds with More’s resistance. Ultimately, Bolt’s fascination with More lies in his “adamantine sense of self” – the refusal to give up his beliefs or values for anything – even his close relationships and loyalty to the king. And whilst More suffers an untimely fate, the strength of his convictions shine through, enabling him to “go to God” with a clear conscience. Much like More – who believes in the verity oif his actions – Bolt reasons that maintaining one’s “sense of self” and resisting authority is not just futile – but necessary.

The authority of the pope as God’s heavenly representative and by extent the sanctity of the law, are undermined by Henry for power and lust. Henry’s excommunication by Clement VII does not deter him from “dispending [with the Pope’s] dispensation” and divorcing his wife of twenty years, Catherine of Aragon. Whilst Henry is seemingly successful in arranging his own personal affairs, his subsequent actions in the national domain lead to a reign of terror that consumes “truly innocent” men such as More. Although his decision to secede from the Church can be justified due to it’s widespread corruption as “a shop”, Henry’s act of resiting the moral authority of his own “ravenous conscience” leads to a life of anguish and torment – indicative of the “fresh, stinking flowers” that haunt him “every time he gets out of bed.” This alludes to the premise that even those in authority are unable to escape the burden of conscience – more than a mere irritation that accompanies autocrats on their path of meaningless death and destruction. Thus Bolt confirms the idea that forgoing ethics in favour of expediency is as destructive as it is futile.

“Sometimes we must stand fast a little, even at the risk of being heroes”. Truly, those who do not ‘stand fast’ in the face of adversity ultimately suffer at the hands of authority as much as those who present active resistance. However, those who are compelled to resist for noble reasons driven by morality and conscience are ultimately rewarded with a death free of regret or spiritual pain. Whilst ‘A man for all season’ is principally a critique of authority and government control, it also delivers a harsh message to bystanders who conform – often at the expense of their ethical acumen and ‘private conscience’. Accordingly, Thomas More is such a compelling character – a man who refuses to budge in the face of tyranny, and for this reason, his death is neither futile nor in vain. Rather, the very act of resisting authority places him in line with the great men of history and immortalizes him truly as “a man for all seasons”.

Words: 1429

[brightsky]

Definitely at a 8/10 standard (maybe 9?). There are still instances of over-summarising (especially in the first body paragraph) but effective analysis was achieved especially in the second body paragraph. Good work!

[Chavi]

How does one maintain the tentative balance between analysis vs summary for text response, when all your content must be based off the plot anyway? In other words, isn't all analysis for this task simply providing a condensed summary of the issues that the characters face, making it in effect a retell of the plot?

In this regard, my 1st and 2nd body paragraphs are rather the same in style - making them both analysis or both summary?
-I always seem confused by this point, as you're unable to use extraneous material for the piece.

[kyzoo]

The practical figure of authority throughout the play, King Henry, acts as a catalyst for the events of the play by instituting anticlerical policies and clamping down heavily on dissent to cement his power. Cardinal Wolsey, a secular cleric with a strong grasp of political realities, attempts to enable Henry to “change his woman” without angering the Catholic Church. Acceding that “The King needs a son,” Wolsey is prepared to manipulate religion in order to avoid a “change of dynasty” that may lead to bloodshed. Clearly lacking any sense of moral obligation, Wolsey “forsakes his own private conscience for the sake of public duties” to comply with the King’s wishes. Despite this, the slow pace of his religious reforms incurs the impatience and wrath of Henry, and Wolsey dies on the way to The Tower: “his effective cause of death: the king’s displeasure”. Whilst Wolsey’s practical loyalty to the crown is evident, he is still sentenced to death, demonstrating that active resistance is not a prerequisite to incur the anger of authority.

This first paragraph is mainly just plot retell, as brightsky pointed out.

I guess one sign of plot retell is the excessive use of quotes evident in this paragraph. Text analysis to me is just exploring the textual ideas related to the topic, and stringing them together into an argument. And I don't really consider the plot, I don't really focus on what happens; rather I prefer to write on ideas explored in the play, and then refer to incidents in the story whenever neccesary.

[brightsky]

Your focus should be on explaining how the events of the text are presented to make a point. You need to analyse what it shows, what the essence of a particular scene is in conveying a certain idea. Admittedly, I scanned through the essay (reading through it again, it doesn't seem that bad), but try not to let the text do the talking, go beyond giving merely an explanation of the events and focus more on discussing what these events show, and in turn, how these events contribute to substantiating the contention that you have established in your introduction. Hope this makes sense.

[m@tty]

Your focus should be on explaining how the events of the text are presented to make a point. You need to analyse what it shows, what the essence of a particular scene is in conveying a certain idea. Admittedly, I scanned through the essay (reading through it again, it doesn't seem that bad), but try not to let the text do the talking, go beyond giving merely an explanation of the events and focus more on discussing what these events show, and in turn, how these events contribute to substantiating the contention that you have established in your introduction. Hope this makes sense.

My teacher only ever makes reference to the character and what they do in a text. Never even hints at authorial intent or any higher meaning. This is meant to be the crux of your discussion in a text response, yes?

[Greggler]

yes

[brightsky]

Your focus should be on explaining how the events of the text are presented to make a point. You need to analyse what it shows, what the essence of a particular scene is in conveying a certain idea. Admittedly, I scanned through the essay (reading through it again, it doesn't seem that bad), but try not to let the text do the talking, go beyond giving merely an explanation of the events and focus more on discussing what these events show, and in turn, how these events contribute to substantiating the contention that you have established in your introduction. Hope this makes sense.

My teacher only ever makes reference to the character and what they do in a text. Never even hints at authorial intent or any higher meaning. This is meant to be the crux of your discussion in a text response, yes?

Not "authorial intent", as the author's intention could differ from your interpretation, but in general, analysing what certain features/events of the text show, what meaning they convey and how this meaning supports your contention, instead of just a simple rundown of events. Excerpts from the current Study Design: "This area of study includes an analysis of the ways in which structures and features are used by the authors of narrative texts to construct meaning...Students also examine the ways in which readers construct meaning from texts through, for example, an awareness of context and purpose, and their knowledge of other texts."

[Chavi]

Students also examine the ways in which readers construct meaning from texts through, for example, an awareness of context and purpose, and their knowledge of other texts."

So can other texts can be mentioned in section A or must the entire essay be purely based off the one particular text?

On a side note, is there any way to escape the mundane 'character based analysis' with these kinds of prompts?

[98.40_for_sure]

Students also examine the ways in which readers construct meaning from texts through, for example, an awareness of context and purpose, and their knowledge of other texts."

So can other texts can be mentioned in section A or must the entire essay be purely based off the one particular text?

On a side note, is there any way to escape the mundane 'character based analysis' with these kinds of prompts?

Mould the prompt as per your own reckonings into a "narrative devices analysis"