What do you think the AMFAS questions will be?

[sajib_mostofa]

does that mean he opposes the divorce?

Pretty much. That's why he tries to get More's support in regards to the divorce.

[TyErd]

does that mean he opposes the divorce?

Pretty much. That's why he tries to get More's support in regards to the divorce.

but then why at the end of the play is he linking arms with Cromwell and laughing about it all?

[98.40_for_sure]

does that mean he opposes the divorce?

Pretty much. That's why he tries to get More's support in regards to the divorce.

but then why at the end of the play is he linking arms with Cromwell and laughing about it all?

The ending is open to individual interpretation. It can be seen as More in contrast to the remainder of the characters, to amplify and elucidate his 'standalone' stance. It can also be seen as that Chapuys and Cromwell are themselves discrete renditions of Common Man, and thus they are one entity.

[m@tty]

does that mean he opposes the divorce?

Pretty much. That's why he tries to get More's support in regards to the divorce.

but then why at the end of the play is he linking arms with Cromwell and laughing about it all?

Because he was merely doing his job. As an ambassador of Spain it was his official position to be against the divorce, but ultimately he cared very little personally on the issue, as seen at the end when he is linking arms with his "enemy".

[kenhung123]

We must stand fast a little even at the risk of being heroes. Is Sir Thomas More truly heroic?

- Yes temptation for wealth is clear shown by Rich
- Yes conforming to corruption is something the "common" people would do as shown by the CM
- Yes he is the only man that is steadfast to his religion and principles in contrast to Cardinal Wolsey

[98.40_for_sure]

We must stand fast a little even at the risk of being heroes. Is Sir Thomas More truly heroic?

- Yes temptation for wealth is clear shown by Rich
- Yes conforming to corruption is something the "common" people would do as shown by the CM
- Yes he is the only man that is steadfast to his religion and principles in contrast to Cardinal Wolsey

You can take it a step further and dedicate one paragraph to explain how one defines the attributes of heroism. Is it staying true to conscionable beliefs? Is it doing what is necessary to survive? Is it being adept and adaptation in tumultuous times?
After that, then you can analyse how Bolt uses other characters to illuminate More's heroic tendencies.

[m@tty]

We must stand fast a little even at the risk of being heroes. Is Sir Thomas More truly heroic?

- Yes temptation for wealth is clear shown by Rich
- Yes conforming to corruption is something the "common" people would do as shown by the CM
- Yes he is the only man that is steadfast to his religion and principles in contrast to Cardinal Wolsey

What do you mean?

Wolsey was going to be killed(but then he just died...) for not sending the letter to the Vatican, because he himself "wanted to be the bishop of Rome".

He maintained his principles and "failed [Henry] in the only thing that mattered".

[sajib_mostofa]

Comparing More with Rich would probably be a much stronger example

[m@tty]

I'd say you should use Roper for comparison of being "steadfast to his religion".

Although More does say Roper has "terribly strong principles" he also says:

Will, I'd trust you with my life. But not your principles. (They mount the stairs) You see, we speak of being anchored to our principles. But if the weather turns nasty you up with an anchor and let it down where there's less wind, and the fishing's better. And "Look," we say, "look, I'm anchored!" (Laughing, inviting ROPER to laugh with him) "To my principles!"

[Greggler]

pro tip. dont think of your paragraphs as centred upon characters. but rather ideas

[m@tty]

Then you end up discussing More and possibly Rich/Cromwell/Common Man in virtually all of them?

My teacher usually dislikes essays structured that way, claiming they sound way too repetitive.

[98.40_for_sure]

Ive got a tendency to always chuck Cromwell, Rich and Wolsey in the same paragraph under 'perfunctory sycophants'

[Greggler]

i base my paragraphs on ideas; and essentially discuss the big picture, occasionally referring to certain characters and how they enforce Bolt's intent; and in that way discussion never really gets repetitive or stale; and it also shows that you have a more in depth and comprehensive knowledge of the text rather than just discussing each individual character and their attributes which illuminate more's heroic qualities.

[kenhung123]

But ultimately, certain ideas are associated with particular characters so it is quite hard to make a distinction.

[Greggler]

When your discussing ideas and themes, then using characters as evidence, you are analysing the text on a higher level.

A good way to do this is not to mention characters in topic sentences and final sentences of paras; this can also help you keep on topic more as well (if your going with a thematic based topic)