VCE Stuff > VCE Literature

Literature Essay Compilation Thread

<< < (11/14) > >>

qazser:

--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on April 02, 2016, 02:38:51 pm ---It's because they're so classy that I want to read them. They make an interesting read. I seriously wish there were more essays to read though... :'(

I wish. But I can't, for two reasons:
a) My essays are nowhere near as classy
b) My school has a strict rule that prevents me from making any of the essays I write and submit to my teacher (be it SACs or practices) publically available whilst I'm still a student. The only reason there are some of my essays floating around AN for English is because I never submitted any of those to my teacher so there was nothing to stop me from posting it.

--- End quote ---

That's a rule and a half, maybe create a Lit vocab thread and we can bounce vocab and structure off there :)

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: qazser on April 02, 2016, 10:17:56 pm ---That's a rule and a half, maybe create a Lit vocab thread and we can bounce vocab and structure off there :)

--- End quote ---

I think that's a great idea since I feel as though my vocab is suffering in lit!

bianic:
VIEWS AND VALUES - The Cat's Table
This is not even close to as good as some of the other essays here. But hopefully it helps someone in someway.

In his novel The Cat’s Table, Michael Ondaatje contrasts the importance of a sense of adventure, childlike disposition and risk with the importance of sensibility and the rite of passage. The sense of childlike wonder can be seen through all the boys but is most clearly portrayed through Cassius and Michael. However Ondaatje also portrays the importance of responsibility and coming of age through characters such as Mrs Lasqueti, Ramadhin and even Michael. The juxtaposition and the switching between the endorsement of both these conflicting ideas is perhaps Ondaatje’s way of representing the difficult but important of the rite of passage and releasing childlike innocence to embrace ‘maturity’.
In the Cat’s Table, Ondaatje uses Mrs Lasqueti in an almost ironic manner to epitomise the importance of maturity and an analytical perception. On the ship the three boys created a fantastical and imaginative tale of wonder surrounding the prisoner on board which was futher encouraged by Flavia Prins. However their image of the prisoner is soon shattered by the mysterious and individualistic Mrs Lasqueti who challenges Michael to “never believe what might just be a rumour”. Ondaatje uses this slight destruction of their joyous imagination portray to the readers a sense that whilst child-like games have their place it is important to hold an objective and factual perception of the world around oneself. Conversely Ondaatje does not seem to endorse Mrs Lasqueti’s character as a whole. Characterising her laugh as something that “hinted it had rolled around in the mud once or twice” and attempting to show the reader that whilst it is important to hold these mature views of the world, it can result in a rather ‘dirty’ personality which is hinted in the imagery of Ondaatje’s descriptions. Mrs Lasqueti, however, is not only used for her own actions and views by Ondaatje.
Ondaatje also uses Mrs Lasqueti and other adults to contrast with the more central characters of Cassius, Michael and Ramadhin to show the conflicting positives and negatives of each of their outlooks and personalities. The boys wondrously explored the ship and all it had to offer “like freed mercury” something which Michael seems to look back on with fondness even in his adult years. This may represent Ondaatje’s view of himself as a child and the nostalgia he has attached to his open and ‘freed’ self. The stiffness of the upper class adults such as Flavia and her awkward small talk with Michael seem to reiterate the idea of adulthood being a rather dull prospect, as Michael and Ramadhin seem resigned to the fact that they will not be “interesting strangers” like Mrs Lasqueti and Mr Mazappa, which may be influenced by the adult narrator and writer, adding a sense of impending fate that may not otherwise be present in a child’s mind. Michael somehow seems to be unaware of the influence the adults around him are having, which can be seen through his unawareness that they are perhaps being led astray by some of the adults. However simultaneously Michael also seems to believe that they are “learning about adults simply by being around them” and this again adds an odd element of impending fate in that Ondaatje shows the reader the odd circumstances the boys are put in, in a way that is obvious to a mature reader but is written as a child who would enjoy and revel in these circumstances with no sense of danger or upset. It seems as through Ondaatje revels in this innocent child’s perspective yet condemns the irresponsibility of adults for not ensuring that the innocence is developed before it is exploited.

Thus through the Cat’s Table it can be seen that Ondaatje endorses the rite of passage and the importance of developing maturity, however he also seems to present the view that adulthood is mundane and holds only a few hints to the joys of childhood. Despite Michaels remembrance of the ebb and flow of childhood attention the author presents him as a typical person who lost touch with his wild friend and also his safe and soft friend until death. Cassius and Ramadhin are used by Ondaatje as foils for each other but not for the traditional purpose of contrasting just the two, rather the two are portrayed as the extremes of Michael’s own personality. The “exuberant” Cassius is to Michael the older and “self-sufficient” iconoclast. Michael often follows where Cassius leads and finds adventure and fun in such explorations. It is as though Ondaatje uses Cassius, and the ship itself, to portray the fleeting and fast paced moment in life that is the transition from child to adult, a moment of freedom from a child’s constraint before the confinements of adulthood take root. The boat is Michael’s rite of passage and Cassius is the brief, final moment of freedom. Ondaatje uses this to epitomise the susceptibility and pure joy of this moment in life, and the lasting effect it has until adulthood, which can be seen in the reflective nature of the text. However in contrast to Cassius, Ramadhin is a soft and reserved character who Michael occasionally sides with, and in the long term, stays with for the longest. If Cassius is used by Ondaatje to show the fleeting moment of freedom then Ramadhin is the moral compass and guide into adulthood that Michael takes with him once the journey is complete. He accepts that “lives could be large with interesting strangers who would pass us without any personal involvement”. Ondaatje shows the reader clearly the negative repercussions of living as Cassius does but the use of Ramadhin is more subtle. From the beginning of the text Ramadhin slowly fades from being ill, to constantly ill, to dying, to death. And this may be used by Ondaatje to portray in a more elusive manner the danger of an overly soft heart and soul. That being to reserved and safe can in fact, still leave you separated.
The end of the text, although the reader is aware that more interactions with Ramadhin occur, they are “separated, lost from each other” and each “uncertain as to wherever it was that we were going”, Ondaatje uses this ending scene to show the separation of the boys and to represent the leitmotif of the text: that although childhood is something to be celebrated and maturity is essential for life; a combination of the two, the middle ground, Michael himself is the only way to survive in peace.

Maz:
Hey human's
I thought about shareing my essay on A Doll's house, by Ibsen. It's on discourse and context, with a bit on reading practices. It is very long as it was a take-home extended essay. I got 88% on it, and came rank 1. Enjoy

Discourses evident within a text help to identify the social, historical, and/or cultural conditions in which a literately work is produced. Discuss with reference to A Doll’s House
By Maryam Qureshi[/b][/b]
Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House, presents a reflection of the world around him, allowing for a universal approach to the text, while exploring the lives of character’s, whom are trapped by social constraints. A recurring concern amongst Ibsen’s plays includes the social issue discussing the oppression of women by conventions limiting them to a domesticated life. The text showcases key aspects of society through the lenses of Feminism and Marxism and the effect the deprivation of these can have upon individuals. A Doll’s House represented the contextual issues of Norwegian society in the era of the plays publication; 1880s. Through the behavioral characteristics of control and deception, and an analysis of discourse, Ibsen in a way scrutinizes the effects of social, and cultural conditions in society, declaring himself to be ‘in revolt of against the age- old lie that the majority is always right’.


The play débuted at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark on the 21st of December 1879, two weeks after it’s first publication. At the time of publication the play elicited much debate centered around the abrupt deviation from cultural and social stereotypes of its characters; in particular of the play’s protagonist; Nora. This debate was not limited wholly within Norwegian society but was a universal occurrence. Subsequently, Ibsen was forced to provide an alternate ending when the play was to be performed in Germany, such that even the actor refused to play a woman who would not ‘want to see her children ’ and ‘cant stay here with you [her husband] any longer’. This path of thinking was an abrupt and shocking deviation from societies’ attitudes and values at the time. Harley Granville-Barker, a fellow playwright, commented upon the play when it finally reached the London stage, calling it, ‘the most dramatic event of the decade’. As it seemed, Nora’s abrupt departure from her ‘Doll’s House’ affected the mind of both sexes.  The perspective of feminism explores the notion of equality amongst sexes, in all of intellectual, economic and political forms. At the time of publication, this would have been an idea that highlighted the degrading view of women, and their portrayal as the ‘other, of less significance’, in real world and literature. Since the 19th century, this focus has been shifted more away from women, to a movement towards covering the degradation of both sexes equally. Prior to late 1800s, Norwegian society reflected it’s patriarchal stance through the subjugation of women. These restrictions were reflected alongside the reception of Nora’s actions by Mrs. Linde’s discourse, ‘a wife can’t borrow money without her husband’s consent’. Beside laws banning women from taking loans, women were also unable to file for divorce or vote, with exceptions to these laws were only permissible if the woman was acting under her male caretaker’s permission. Women were considered careless and incapable and thus dissolved of any power. Due to this, they were expected to stay home, urged by the stigmatization often subjected upon those who chose to deviate from society’s imposed restrictions. An idea that Ibsen explores through Nora’s dialogue ‘I passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours [her husbands]’. Here, Nora’s resistance to the idea of being passed between ‘Daddy’s’ and her husband’s hands illuminated the extent of the extreme patriarchy amongst society at the time. Since Nora’s childhood, her father has regarded her as ‘the other’, then, her father handed her to Helmer who treated her like a valued possession. This is best depicted by Nora’s self-realization towards the end of the play as she describes the truth of her marriage, ‘you arranged everything to your tastes, and I acquired the same tastes. Or I pretended to...I lived by doing tricks for you Trovold.’ As Nora describes her marriage, Ibsen represents the cultural behaviour expected to be adopted by women, incorporating; a softness of temper, outward obedience and scrupulous attention. Helmer then provides a focus to this idea through the declaration that women, in the 19th century society, were given one role, to be ‘first and foremost, a wife and a mother’. Ibsen’s intent upon the portrayal of women through A Doll’s House is clear through some notes he had made, where he clearly highlighted the anomalous position of women in the prevailing patriarchal society, ‘A women [he wrote] cannot be herself in contemporary society; it is an exclusively male society with laws drafted by men, and with counsel judges who judge feminine conduct from the male point of view’*. Thus, in closing the door on her husband and children, Nora paved the way for the women’s movement through her opposition of the expected norms in society.
 


Throughout the majority of the play, Nora is portrayed as the subservient wife, ready to propitiate her husband, believing him the ‘head of the household’ and her caretaker. Ibsen portrays this social norm through her dialogue, ‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’. Though through the surrounding conversation by Helmer, ‘All right then! It’s really just my little joke’, and ‘I know that’, it can be deduced that she is saying this out of love; this phrase is a striking representation of society at the time. Ibsen creates a representation of women as being unable to dream, let alone act upon thoughts that would potentially be against the wishes of their male counterparts; highlighting the extent of subjugation evident amongst society towards women, such that even her ‘dreams’ are being controlled and fine-lined to fit inside the boundaries of a patriarchal society. However, it is not only Nora’s dialogue that becomes a reminder of a woman’s ‘place’, but also the dialogue of her husband, Helmer. Helmer, through the progression of his life, has chosen to utilize morality and honesty in order to achieve his success, both of which have been to some extent fruitful to him, and is portrayed as a stereotypical role model in society. However, included in this stereotype is the acceptance of Helmer’s superiority over Nora, an idea Helmer exercises through the way in which he addresses his wife.  In the very first page of the play, he addresses Nora as his ‘little sky-lark chirping’ and in the proceeding pages, my ‘little squirrel frisking’ and ‘pretty little pet’. Upon analysis of these nicknames, it is evident of their substandard connotation. In all, he refers to her as an animal, substantiating society’s view of women as the ‘lesser’. Ibsen artfully couples each animal name with a verb to allow Helmer to accentuate his superiority over Nora through a reiteration of the role of women in society to be of a working nature. A fact, that Helmer chooses to remind his wife of frequently. It can also be observed that Helmer addresses Nora as ‘little’. This in a way adds a further layer to the idea of a feeble woman, who is forever under the wing of a dominant male. The extent of this superiority is realized to audiences later when Nora begins calling herself ‘it’; ‘we call it a spendthrift’. This discourse perhaps takes another level of subjugation, through likening Nora, a woman, with an inanimate object that has no feelings or personal thoughts. Through the symbolism of referring Nora to an object, Ibsen’s society is articulately reflected, through the positioning of women to be ‘conscious-less’. More astounding than this is the ease with which Nora refers to herself as ‘it’, highlighting that this discourse would have been a common occurrence.  Thus, through this, Helmer surreptitiously reminds Nora of her place as the ‘working wife’ and the ‘sacrificer’, so that he is in the domineering position to give his wife everything, except that which society at the time restricted him from giving;               
      ‘Helmer:  I would gladly work night and day for you. Nora- bear sorrow and want for your sake. But no man would sacrifice his honor for the.one he loves.
Nora: It is a thing hundreds of thousands of women have done.”


Ibsen criticizes the lack of feminine equality through careful use of discourse to portray certain character traits amongst his characters that, at the era of production would have been viewed as flaws and retardation from societal norms. To cope with the behavioral boundaries imposed from society, certain characters employed strategies in which to cope, one of these strategies being ‘control’. Examples of characters attempting to control their environment are a frequent occurrence throughout the play, catalyzed primarily by their subjugation and victimization. Ibsen displays this directly through the discourse of the female protagonist, Nora. Though Nora openly stated, ‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’, as the play progresses she disregards Helmer’s requests on spending less money, eating sweets and paying for her husband’s treatment. Perhaps the primary example of Nora’s need to control her environment is the reason she takes her husband on holiday. Nora believed that Helmer was in dire need of a vacation, despite Helmer making it clear that he didn’t want to go; (when Nora presented the idea), ‘being frivolous, that it was his duty as a husband not to give in to all the whims and fancies of mine’. Despite this reluctance on Helmer’s part, Nora decides to hide the true extent of her husband’s illness from him and insists on taking him, ‘It was necessary he should have no idea what a dangerous condition he was in. It was to me that the doctors came and said that his life was in danger, and that the only thing to save him was to live in the south.’ This excerpt portrays Nora’s nature, and the resultant effect of her suppression. Nora, in taking a loan out, was ready to ‘take the law into her own hands’ and becoming a ‘hypocrite, a liar, and worse than that, a criminal! Mr’s Linde is also shocked when she hears of Nora’s actions;               
 ‘Mrs Linde: Listen, Nora, are you sure you haven’t done something rash?
Nora: Is it rash to save your husband’s life?
Mrs Linde: I think it’s rash if you do it without his knowledge’      
It is evident through discourse that Nora is still oblivious to the illegality of her actions and has little comprehension of the magnitude of trouble she may be in. Conversely, the exchange becomes an illumination of Nora’s frame of thinking; for her, any method she may take to reach a particular end point is justified if the desired end point ensues.  Her approach to a dilemma is to control the situation, through bypassing any consultation that may result in an idea contradictory to hers. Nora’s statement, ‘‘I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to’ becomes seemingly more and more implausible as the play progresses.                      Despite Nora’s autarchic actions, she remains unpunished. This however, changes following Nora’s fraudulent actions and her subsequent treatment of Krogstad, which prompts him to write a letter to Helmer with the intention of disclosing his wife’s actions.  It is at this stage another one of Nora’s controlled situations emerges and Nora, out of desperation searches for ways to prevent Hemler from opening the letterbox and learning of her secret. Ibsen portrays the ghastly effects of the subjugation upon women, through an exploration of the side effect of deception. Nora, when practicing her dance, turns the situation to her advantage by deterring her husband from checking the letterbox where Krogstad had placed the letter;            
 ‘Nora: What are you going to do there?
Helmer: Only see if any letters have come.
Nora: No, no! Don’t do that, Torvald!
Helmer: Why not?
Nora: Torvald, please don't. There aren’t any.
Subsequently, Nora successfully gains her husband’s attention and she begins to dance so wildly that he has to tell her, ‘Not so Fast! Not so Fast!’ and ‘Not so wild, Nora!’ Perhaps the most important discourse Ibsen utilises to present the desperation of Nora and her subsequent need to control, is portrayed through ‘Nora you are dancing as if your life depended on it’, to which she replies, ‘it does’.  This discourse accurately portrays the position of women amongst society at the time, and more importantly, the position of the wife. The negative consequences of the patriarchal society become evident as Nora finds that her ‘life depended’ upon keeping her actions a secret and ensuring her husband never discovers her mistake, and thus devises a stratagem to cover-up the action, reflecting the austere expectations for women to fit the role of the innocent and be the perfect wife; to the extent that Nora described it as a matter of life. Subjecting woman to these extreme conditions for large interludes can be described as the cause of Nora’s controlling tendencies. From a post-feministic viewpoint is can be concluded that Ibsen, through the use of discourse, illustrated the resultant effects of this severe subjugation, and thus, in doing so, provided a description of society at the time, exploring the resultant future effects of the hierarchal society in which women were enforced to conceive severe processes to cope. 

Deception is a peculiarity often associated profoundly with control, and hence becomes another subterfuge through which Ibsen echoes societal values. Ibsen articulately incorporates deception within A Doll’s House, to create a replication of the deleterious features of society and the coping mechanism’s women in the 19th century adopted as a means of ‘survival’. This innate characteristic of deception is evident within the opening of the play and becomes the first test of Nora’s honesty; a test which she fails. Helmer repeatedly makes it clear that he doesn’t approve of Nora ‘popping into the confectioner’s’. Upon Nora’s return, Helmer immediately questions her as to if she ‘forgot herself in town?’ and ‘Hasn’t miss sweet-tooth been breaking rules in town today?’ Nora immediately denies this; ‘no I assure you Trovold’, despite audiences later observing that she ‘takes the bag [of macaroons] out of her hand’, and offers them to Dr. Rank, questioning, ‘what about a little macaroon?’ To this, even the doctor inquires, ‘I thought they [referring to the macaroons] were forbidden here’. Through this discourse, Ibsen divulges that after eight years of marriage in a patriarchal society, Nora has developed strategies in which to be able to follow her preferences, while concurrently keeping her husband happy. This was a direct portrayal of 19th century Norwegian society, where women were expected to give up many of their personal preferences in order to please their husbands.                         
      Though it may be possible to overlook these ‘little white lies’, some of Nora’s deception, however, has greater consequences. Another example of Nora’s deception appears again in an interaction between Helmer;
‘Helmer; Do you remember last Christmas? Three whole weeks beforehand you shut yourself up every evening till after midnight making flowers for the Christmas tree and all the other splendid things you wanted to surprise us with. Ugh, I never felt so bored in all my life.
Nora: I wasn’t the least bit bored.
Helmer (smiling): But it turned a bit of an anticlimax, Nora.’
The audience later learns the truth about what Nora was actually doing when she ‘shut yourself up every evening’ a few passages later through her conversation with her friend Mrs. Linde, ‘Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening’. Despite Nora’s justification for these good-natured lies, her deceptive nature is still evident. One deceptive act translates into another, and Nora’s nature changes completely as she attempts to cope with the cultural and social values of society. The danger of Nora’s deception, however, is not fully recognized until another conversation with Mr’s. Linde when she asks, ‘Won’t you ever tell him?’ to which Nora replies, ‘perhaps one day’ and ‘Then it might be a good idea to have something up my sleeve’. It is evident through this dialogue that Nora feels no guilt or humiliation in the lengths she goes to, to achieve her way. Consequently, Ibsen once again proves Nora’s adaptability to her environment; she has learned to survive and control a situation, from the position of the beleaguered and subservient wife.                              
   Nora’s little lies continue and audiences are given the impression that she may be habitual liar, a trait even Helmer discovers;    
Helmer: Has anyone been here?
Nora: Here? No.
Helmer: That’s funny. I saw Krogstad leaving the house.
Nora: Really? Yes, that’s right, Krogstad was here for a minute.
 It becomes evident through this discourse, that Nora has made a routine of lying, to a magnitude that she doesn’t need to think twice on lying to serve her own purpose, even to those closest to her. This demeanor endures throughout the play, climaxing in Act 3, at which time Nora makes the final assertion of her departure. Though this scene has brought on enthusiastic welcome from many feminists throughout time, a deeper look indicates the real dark reason of the ‘doll’s’ abrupt departure from her house. The survival strategies Nora originally employed have evidently failed her, however, instead of changing her ways, Nora adapts to her new situation through careful modification of her strategies. She expresses this through the monopolisation of discourse and an obstinate repudiation to discuss the reasons for her departure. Her statements ‘that’s why I can’t  stay with you any longer’, ‘I’m leaving here at once’ and ‘Let me go! Let me out!’ become evidence of this repudiation. Nora then departs from her untenable situation, declaring; ‘I must stand on my own two feet if I'm to get to know myself and the world outside. That's why I can't stay here with you any longer.’ Thus, through an articulate utilization of discourse, Ibsen presents the 19th-century woman as immature and deceitful, however also displays that as time passes she becomes more able to decide what ‘is a necessity for her’. Ibsen reveals and discusses the social and cultural position of women in his context and the innate resultant instinct of survival some developed in order to achieve some happiness in the strictly patriarchal society. This progression of Nora, developing from the submissive wife who, on the surface, obeyed her husbands ‘commands’, to the emergence of a ‘new Nora’; a women who decided to place herself first, is a direct depiction of Ibsen’s society through the exploration of the concept of feminism and it’s growth some decades proceeding A Doll’s House.



Marxist readings are methods of socioeconomic analysis; and an idea that ‘actions and human institutions are economically determined, that the class struggle is the basic agency of historical change’ Ibsen’s incorporation of this reading in his work created an exploration of the evolving expectations concerning the middle class during this time in Norway. The ‘bourgeois respectability’, as it was called, incorporated ideas of financial success free of debt and a high morale patriarchal society. The play opens on a scene where Nora enters with a bare Christmas tree, carrying a number of parcels and the proceeding discourse becomes evidence of Nora’s submission to commercialism, ‘Hide the Christmas tree away carefully, Helene. The children mustn’t see it till this evening when it is decorated’. Although a minor action, through a Marxist lens the need to dress the tree can be associated symbolically with commercialism, presenting Nora as one who is being forced to submit to socioeconomic standards. This Nora further exemplifies through her quote, ‘There’s a crown. Keep the change’. Though it is openly discussed between Nora and her husband that ‘this is the first Christmas they haven’t had to go carefully’ and implied that the family has had money issues in the past, Nora gives the money to the Porter freely and doesn’t catechize for change. This is perhaps the first hint, in the play, of societal thinking, during that era. Through this quote, Nora’s deludes the Porter of the low financial position of her family and gives the illusion that they are in a better condition than they actually are. At the opening of the play it becomes evident that Nora equates freedom with the acquisition of money, believing that the only way she can be ‘carefree and happy’, is if she has material wealth. Of course this frame of thinking changes completely towards the end of the play when she realizes that money doesn’t make her ‘happy’. This exemplification of one’s socioeconomic status and highlighting the importance of it is an everlasting theme amongst literature, and subsequently, a reflection of society. According to this notion of Marxism, Nora has become overwhelmed by her surroundings to the extent that she feels no option but to submit to the socioeconomically classified society. 


Ibsen corroborates, through the accentuation of discourse, that Norwegian society during the 19th century was a manifestation of socioeconomic issues, driven by a severe patriarchal stance. The author highlight’s the effects of this frame of thinking through the deviation of ‘stereotypical’ behaviors in relation to gender, namely, Nora’s infatuation with control and deceit to escape the entrapment and subjugation placed heavily upon females. A Doll’s House is a reflection of the social and cultural norms as it deals with prominent issues that occurred during 19th century; discussing not only society’s conditions but also the resultant effects upon the subjugated. Through the presentation of the aspects of Feminism and Marxism in society, Ibsen portrays his drama as well ahead of its time by laying the foundations of the, then emerging, ‘Feminist movement’, decades before it’s actualization in the mid-twentieth century. Thus identifying the social, cultural and economic conditions prevalent in society, both during the time and beyond.

bianic:
Jane Eyre - Creative SAC
Berta Mason - Short Story
This is not perfect but I was searching everywhere for an example when I did my creative SAC so I thought I'd pop mine up.
It scored in the top range so its at least a somewhat reliable example... Hope it helps someone. (Please ignore grammer and spelling mistakes, not my strong suit)

See attached

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page