Hey Lauren I know this isn't really related to English specifically, however I've been needing an answer to this question for ages.
Are literature and English writing Styles different? I mean I know how to practice my writing for English- which is generally through practice essays of text response, context and language analysis, however I have no idea how to practice for lit!
Yes, Lit and English require a pretty different skillset in order to score well, though there is a little bit of overlap. One of the biggest differences is, as you've noted, English can be divided into T.R. Context and L.A. whereas most of what you've done in Lit. up until now won't be assessed again. The Close Analysis / Passage Analysis / Close Reading is all you'll be doing on the exam, so that should definitely be your priority when it comes to practice pieces. The work you've done in Alternate V&V or Adaptations and Transformations SACs will help assist in your overall understanding, but you won't actually be asked to focus on those things.
The simplest way I can put this is: English is usually about ideas, Lit is always about language.
Obviously the Language Analysis component of English is concerned with (surprise) language, but even this links into the broader
idea of how we're being persuaded. In an English T.R. you're expected to deal with the ideas of the text, making reference to the language and devices, but in Lit, you centre on these features and look at
how they create meaning, as opposed to
what the meaning might be.
Hope that wasn't too rambly for you
What is the "Goal" of text response essays?
Answer the prompt.
Sounds simple, doesn't it?
I could expand upon this for ages but what it comes down to is your ability to draw meaning from the text and apply it to a discussion of VCAA's choosing. I've posted before on the general (unofficial) criteria categories - these aren't prescribed or anything, this is just my own list, but if you're fulfilling these requirements then you're fulfilling VCAA's by proxy, these are just better worded imho
- Relevance: to the prompt and to the text. Fairly simple, but this is often where students lose marks either for focusing on the wrong implications of a prompt or misinterpret it entirely. Classic example: there was a text in 2012 about overcoming adversity and got the prompt: 'How does >text< show that trauma can bring about unexpected qualities in people' or something along those lines. The Assessor's Report noted how many essays dealt with the general qualities, but not the
unexpected qualities. I wasn't joking when I said your task is to answer the prompt- but it's a tougher challenge than many expect it to be.
-Ideas: you're assessed on both depth and breadth. Fairly straightforward.
-Writing: vocab, spelling, and grammar/expression. Both these last categories can influence your mark considerably if you're doing something wrong, but relevance is the biggest determiner of the three.
Let me know if you have any more specific questions and hopefully I'll be able to clarify.
Hi Lauren,
I just posted this on the Lit board, but it also applies to English too. Do you think now is too early to begin re reading texts that I want to study for both the English and the Lit exam? For Lit, I'm planning to write on Capote's In Cold Blood and Kennedy's Dark Roots and for English I think I'll use Stasiland for text response (but its tricky to know because we have only just started The Reluctant Fundamentalist).
Both In Cold Blood and Stasiland are pretty big texts too. Thoughts on starting these re reads now?
For Lit: reread now. Reread constantly. It doesn't always have to be a cover-to-cover, experience, but you should definitely familiarise yourself with some major passages or interesting annotation-dense sections. Hopefully you've grasped things plot-wise so full read-throughs will become less-and-less necessary as the year goes on. This doesn't have to be too intensive either, just going through your notes or a brief excerpt before bed/over breakfast/whenever you learn best can be sufficient.
For English: Stasiland and TRF probably warrant a reread or two, but it depends where you're at. Going through a pure text version probably won't help much unless your memory is a sieve and you've forgotten who the characters are, but going through an annotated version (or some chronological notes if you have them) might be useful.
I suppose it depends
why you're rereading. If you feel it'll assist in your understanding of the text, then go for it. For me, reading was always a nice break from 'real study' ie. sitting through methods practice papers, so I'd look forward to going over notes on the bus or when my internet connection was down
Like most of my advice on here, it all comes down to doing whatever works for you.
Home
Help
Search
Login
