50 in English, available for queries :)

[Saammhmm]

Hi Lauren,

I'm quite unsure as to which text I should do at the end of year exam. We've gone through Ransom and Henry IV Part I already and I feel capable doing both texts. I'd rather do Henry IV because there's so much depth in Shakespeare and the Lit side of me wants to do it (I studied Antony and Cleopatra last year for Lit) but I feel like I should focus on Ransom because the calibre of text responses by students doing Henry IV is so high. Should I stick to Ransom or Henry IV? Do you think doing Ransom will make it easier for me to get a higher score than if I did Henry IV and vice versa?

Hopefully you can answer my questions, thankyou 

[HHD]

Hi Lauren, my eng teacher comments on my essay: you retell the story, how can I avoid retelling the story in text response?

[#J.Procrastinator]

Hi Lauren!

I'm studying "The Member of The Wedding" as a context piece and was wondering whether it'd be a good idea to include song lyrics as a secondary text? How would I weave it into my paragraph with my main ideas drawn from my primary text? Also, what other secondary texts or ideas can I refer to? (kind of stuck on ideas)

One last thing, do I have to make references to The Member of the Wedding in each paragraph?

Cheers! 

[literally lauren]

yang_dong:

It seems a little counter-intuitive for me to be doing this sort of work since this is what you're expected do to in order to understand the text. It looks like you've got some starting points so see where they take you. If you're struggling with text comprehension then it might be worth consulting your teacher.

Saammhmm:

Go with whatever text you prefer. Regardless of the average scores or how many students write on what, someone has to get a 10, and there's no reason why you can't if you're prepared to put the work in. Since Ransom is in its 4th year, there will likely be some tricky prompts. Henry is only in its 3rd, but writing on Shakespeare is an acquired skill. Having done it in previous years puts you in good stead to deal with whatever they throw at you, so don't be too concerned with what the rest of the state chooses.

HHD:

There's an excellent blog post on the VCE Study Guides page on this topic here: http://www.vcestudyguides.com/how-to-avoid-retelling-the-story
Other than that, constantly reminding yourself not to retell the story is a good way to go about it :p Now that you know what you're doing wrong, make a conscious effort to analyse. You can safely assume your assessor has read the text, so minimise time spent recounting or contextualising events. It's enough to say 'After X argues with Y, their relationship dynamic changes...' rather than delving into the lead up to the event.

#J.Procrastinator
Check out the context examples directory in my sig, there's heaps of stuff there to kick start your ideas. You can use song lyrics, but it can come off as a bit hackneyed or cliche, it depends on the song I suppose.
No, you do not have to use the text in each paragraph. In fact, I'd recommend having at least one or two dealing with other ideas. UNLESS your teacher wants you to use it, in which case, that's what you should do for your SAC. But for the exam, no, there's no requirement about constantly harking back to the text. Try to use it to propel yourself into more interesting territory- that's what the external examples are for.

[Rod]

Hey Lauren

Was wondering if you had any tips on how to effectively come up with your own ideas for text response. What I do is I use the study guides as a start point, to locate where I should be looking for ideas. And then I read the important scenes and try and come up with my own ideas using -what,who,where,when,why. It takes me really long and sometimes the ideas that come out aren't even that good.

Thanks!

[JackSonSmith]

Hey Lauren

Was wondering if you had any tips on how to effectively come up with your own ideas for text response. What I do is I use the study guides as a start point, to locate where I should be looking for ideas. And then I read the important scenes and try and come up with my own ideas using -what,who,where,when,why. It takes me really long and sometimes the ideas that come out aren't even that good.

Thanks!

That happens to me too. I find that if one of my ideas doesn't quite stick, scrapping it and moving on can bring about new and better ideas. I know that crossing out some ideas might be difficult but what is born out of those ashes can soar high.

[literally lauren]

You're definitely on the right track using study guides/ other resources as a foundation. Rather than who/what/when etc. it might be more helpful to ask questions with more direction. Beginning with 'Does this mean...' 'Is this always the case...' or 'How can I relate this to...' is probably more helpful.

'Coming up with ideas' doesn't really happen when you're just stroking your beard philosopher-style; going back to the text should always be your first resort.
Of course it can be difficult to develop ideas in a vacuum (ie. without a prompt to focus on) If you're still at the early stages of working through the text then linking your points to themes will suffice. For example, you might be finding a lot of examples in the text that relate to the concept of identity, class, change etc. Rather than just grouping these together, consider what specifically is being communicated about these themes. Is identity static? How can class boundaries be overcome? Will these changes always have the intended consequences, or can it sometimes be unpredictable?

Once you're able to answer these, you start moving into V&V territory. Prefacing your statements with 'The author suggests identity is a fluid concept...' then turns it into a more complex idea, and you'll already have the evidence to back it up.

Don't be too worried if you're not churning out revolutionary ideas right away (or at all :p) Trying to say something that no one else has ever thought of before is perhaps too extreme a task and may lead to you overreaching and making some tenuous links or claims. Rather, aim to communicate sophisticated, well developed ideas- if you're doing that then you're well and truly fulfilling the criteria. (eg. in the above example, the whole state knows that 'identity' is somehow important, but in terms of actually being able to comment on the core message, only the minority can do that well.)

Hope that helps

[Rod]

You're definitely on the right track using study guides/ other resources as a foundation. Rather than who/what/when etc. it might be more helpful to ask questions with more direction. Beginning with 'Does this mean...' 'Is this always the case...' or 'How can I relate this to...' is probably more helpful.

'Coming up with ideas' doesn't really happen when you're just stroking your beard philosopher-style; going back to the text should always be your first resort.
Of course it can be difficult to develop ideas in a vacuum (ie. without a prompt to focus on) If you're still at the early stages of working through the text then linking your points to themes will suffice. For example, you might be finding a lot of examples in the text that relate to the concept of identity, class, change etc. Rather than just grouping these together, consider what specifically is being communicated about these themes. Is identity static? How can class boundaries be overcome? Will these changes always have the intended consequences, or can it sometimes be unpredictable?

Once you're able to answer these, you start moving into V&V territory. Prefacing your statements with 'The author suggests identity is a fluid concept...' then turns it into a more complex idea, and you'll already have the evidence to back it up.

Don't be too worried if you're not churning out revolutionary ideas right away (or at all :p) Trying to say something that no one else has ever thought of before is perhaps too extreme a task and may lead to you overreaching and making some tenuous links or claims. Rather, aim to communicate sophisticated, well developed ideas- if you're doing that then you're well and truly fulfilling the criteria. (eg. in the above example, the whole state knows that 'identity' is somehow important, but in terms of actually being able to comment on the core message, only the minority can do that well.)

Hope that helps

It does! Thank you so much

[BucketPreacher]

don't worry I got 15/20 from my teacher. boo. he said my interpretations were wrong and questioned if it was my work lol

So I'm about to post my entire essay ... If you don't have time to read it just let me know, don't feel obligated or anything! It's my first practice essay I've done all year, I probably spent an hour and a half doing it in total because I was searching for quotes as I don't know the poems well enough yet. I feel like I lost my way a bit in this poem as well but oh well!! I usually write about this much in an hour under sac conditions!


1.   Owen Describes war as a place where God and love have no place. Discuss.
In Wilfred Owen’s anthology of War Poems, Owen utilizes poems to transport his thoughts about the war, namely with regards to death and destruction. Owen underlines and condemns the belief in God and religion as only destructive to the person’s self, and forms idea that such ideologies should be banished from war. Owen also notices the absence of real love on the battlefield, in where it has no place except in the grimmest of times. Owen however, recognises the ubiquitous, all-pervading theme of destruction and horror in the war, being at the sole heart of war.

Owen portrays God as an omnipotent force that isn’t seemingly present nor accommodating for soldiers on the battlefield. Throughout Owen’s anthology of War Poems, Owen highlights the importance of God and religion for soldiers at war. In the poem At A Calvary Near the Ancre, Owen employs the literary device of bibliomancy, by juxtaposing the little indifference between God neglecting Jesus at his crucifixion and allowing the ‘soldiers’ to ‘los[e] limb[s ]’ in the war. God was neglecting his duty of overseeing those who ‘lay down their lives’ for ‘the greater love,’ which leads Owen to remain cynical towards the existence of God, being facetious, exclaiming that the soldiers  ‘do not hate’ God after their futile sacrificial deaths.  The ‘disciples’ or priests that Owen believed were at the war to comfort soldiers in times of misery were to ‘hide apart’ throughout the war, being accountable to no one. But multitudes of priests often ‘stroll[ed]’ with ‘pride’ knowing that they were ‘flesh-marked by the beast,’ which was detailed by Owen through his use of visual metaphoric language representing his loss of faith in God and religion, as these priests felt a form of prideful vanity with the finger-marks of Satan left on them, forcing God to drink the cup of fury and remain redundant as the overseer of the war. In Anthem for Doomed Youth, Owen also highlights not only the damaging existence of God during the war, but also the presence of religious thought. Religion and God provided hope for soldiers. Those who prayed ‘orisons’ to their own God’s were ineffectively in the midst of an apostrophe, or a one-sided conversation to the personified God. Whilst those with belief were praying, Owen relays that the ‘stuttering rifles, rapid rattle’ can ‘patter out’ those ‘hasty orisons,’ seeing religion as a false outlet of hope. ; in other words, Owen recognises the ‘futility[FUTILITY]’ of religion, as warfare will destroy any force in its path, and those with no religious value will continue the ‘drawing down of blinds,’ and each dawn attack the enemy. God has no physical presence on the battlefield, and like religion it ‘has no place’ as it only incurs disappointment and death, similarly to love.

Owen highlights the absence of pure love on the battlefield, but in the more dire moments such humanity is seen to return. Love is to take pleasure in doing something, or to feel great amounts of affection towards something. Owen focuses in Dulce et Decorum Est that ‘the old Lie’ is ‘Dulce et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori’ which is translated to it is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country. Such a statement can create generational conflict, as ‘love’ and patriotism become interchangeable and can have ‘children ardent for some desperate glory,’ ready to be sent to war for the love of ones country. But upon arrival, this patriotic love ceases to exist. These sons arriving at the war with ‘such high zest’ soon become accompanied wit the true nature of war. Owen employs a nightmarish theme to the poem to emphasize not only the absence of love on the battlefield, but to explore its polar opposite. The language choices of Owen,’Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, curs[ing] through the sludge’ provides the reader with a metaphoric visual endeavor into the world of the speaker, displaying the alliteration of the ‘K’ sound, situating the reader into the speakers shoes, situating them into a nightmarish fog where sounds echo for lengthy periods. ‘Coughing like hags’ also provides the reader with a nightmare image, alluding to the ‘hags’ or witches in the universally renown Macbeth. Whilst the frightening environment limits the soldiers ability to love, Owen states that ‘men marches asleep.’ In essence, Owen attempts to say that the soldiers have lost the semblance of humanity and are reduced to ciphers, due to being desensitised to love and everything that makes them human, except for their march. Such an abnormality becomes the norm. Owen also attempts to illustrate to loss of love in the soldiers, saying that ‘all went lame; all blind.’ The parallel construction of the aforementioned quote emphasizes the misery and loss of love as a universal condition, and that nobody escapes the immediacy of battle drowning all other thoughts. No one. Owen condemns such patriotic love through the use of such vivid, harsh imagery, forcing the reader to witness the true nature of war. In the poem S.I.W (self-inflicted wound), Owen illustrates how parents would ‘rather [their sons] dead than in disgrace,’ denouncing such patriotic love into driving ‘half the seed of Europe’ towards their untimely demise. The soldiers were sent to war to defend their families honour, and in an attempt to transform unrequited love into two partied love through mother, father and son, and thus were wanting to be injured, and the ‘bullets missed’ were ‘teasing the hunger of his brain.’ Sons were going to war to be shot so the mother ‘would have a nice safe wound to nurse,’ rather than ‘death before dishonour.’ Owen challenges the ideology of such love through condemning the futile nature of love equating to death where the mother says ‘Tim (the soldier who died) died smiling,’ revealing the generational conflict between the reasons for war. In the poem ‘The Last Laugh,’ Owen reveals however that the soldiers dying in their last moments of life called out to their loved ones – ‘Jesus Christ,’ ‘Mother – Dad,’ and ‘My Love!’ were three examples. This truly exemplifies the nature of losing the components of love and burying them deep, to only return to the true human form to reveal all human emotion, especially love, in the final moments of life. Owen explicitly states that there is no room for love during wartime or it can be self-damaging to the human soul. But in the last moments of life, humans put their priorities in order and love is openly expressed. On the other hand, destruction, horror and death have a place in war.

The obliteration of everything is a common occurrence throughout a war, and exasperates horror into the souls of soldiers. In the poem, ‘Cramped in that Funneled Hole,’ Owen highlights the omnipresent destruction and horror of war. Owen attempts to position the reader in the shoes of the soldiers sitting in a ‘teeth of traps,’ a crater made through an artillery shell explosion. Owen employs the literary device of anthropomorphism in an attempt to ascribe human traits to the hole the soldiers are sitting in to provide the horrific, brutal imagery of soldiers being consumed and ‘swallowed’ by these ‘death jaws.’ Life and death is not in the control of these soldiers. Whilst some soldiers are still struggling and persevering for life, they watch as the ‘dead are smelt.’ Owen not only provides the reader with blunt imagery, but stipulates the reader with ‘a sour sharp odour’ that the soldiers could smell; such horror and destruction moved beyond just vision for these soldiers, and such horror and destruction was unexceptional during the war. In Dulce et Decorum Est, Owen stresses the commonality of the demolition of life. Men don’t just die simple deaths – men ‘gutter, chok[e] [and] drown’ in their deaths by a ‘green sea’ of ‘gas,’ for example. Men can be force fed death and destruction, where such horror remains a ‘helpless sight.’ Owen utilizes the aforementioned quote to provide the reader with a paradoxical image, as the speaker’s vision is perfectly normal, but sight in this case is a synecdoche, meaning that the speakers all-to-active sight becomes the problem. The permanently paved theme of death causes the destruction of many individuals in Owen’s time. Owen establishes that men lost components of humanity due to destruction when he says the ‘white eyes [were] writhing in his face,’ creating an image of a man losing the colour and humanity behind his eyes, or life, providing a metaphorical visual image. Owen purposefully provides the reader with this upfront imagery, but also personifies the eyes, making them seem like they are detached from the workings of the body, having lives of their own. Throughout the previously mentioned poems, Owen establishes that there is a place for the death, destruction and horror in the placement of war. BTW this is a repost for some reason moderators made deleted my comment and made a thread for it, but I wanted Lauren's feedback! 

 Throughout Wilfred Owen’s poems, he establishes that God and love can be the catalyst to the deaths of many on the battlefield, and objectifies to the belief in both, other than in their most pure form. Belief in God can provide soldiers with a false hope, which can be damaging to a persons heart, and can ultimately lead to their own demise. He remains sacrilegious towards God himself. Love is also expressed to be the catalyst for the death of many sons of Europe. Men died for the love of their country, or for the love of their families and Owen condemned such a futile reasoning for death and believed there was no place for it. On the other hand, Owen believed that death and destruction of the environment, the individual and the human soul was a necessity of war, ergo there will always be a place for the death of many at the heart of war.

[24bauer12]

Hi Lauren,
How does one devise an idiosyncratic interpretation of Macbeth or another text?How do you incorporate language devices into a T.R?

[soNasty]

Hi Lauren, would it be worthwhile to include aspects of McCarthyism and other factors in the 1950's within my text response for Twelve Angry Men?

[brenden]

he said my interpretations were wrong

my interpretations were wrong

interpretations were wrong

interpretations were wrong

 

[literally lauren]

BucketPreacher:
Your teacher is wrong and he should feel wrong. I can't really find any interpretational errors here based on my understanding of Owen's ouevre, but when teachers say 'your interpretation is wrong' what they usually mean is 'your interpretation is not my interpretation.' For the sake of your SACs you're usually better off catering to your teacher's whims, then in the exam you can go your own way (or at least, try to cater to the dominant reading of a text so as to appease as many assessors as possible.)
Also in future, please post entire essays on the English Work Submission and Marking board. If you want me to look over it you're free to send a PM

24bauer12:
An idiosyncratic reading of a Shakespeare text might be somewhat tricky seeing as there are entire institutions devoted to understanding the ol' bard. I suppose that should be your starting point though; once you've read into the text to the best of your abilities, read outside the text as well. I guarantee there will be no shortage of resources.
And you would comment on language devices just like any other piece of evidence, not too dissimilar from a Language Analysis. eg. 'Shakespeare's repeated use of polysyndeton implies a copiousness and culmination of the character's traits...'

soNasty:
Yes definitely. Don't get too far away from the text, but for Twelve Angry Men the historical and political context is quite important. I'd say it's safe to assume your assessors will know some general background info, thus referring to 'the influence of McCarthyism' or 'the dominant views in 1950s America' would be sufficient. My rough rule is never to be discussing things outside the text for more than one sentence at a time. Even if you're bringing in outside knowledge, try to incorporate it into a sentence like 'Rose utilises the conflict between Juror 3 and 11 to highlight...' or 'Thus, through this exploration of reasonable doubt, the audience is given greater insight into...'

[yang_dong]

Hi Lauren,

in regards to the book ransom is there any significance in the fact that  it is somax who suspects that Hermes in his disguise formed isn't 'a man like the rest of us'?

thank you

[M_BONG]

It's up to interpretation. Somax embodies the common man in Ransom - contrasted against Priam's royalty - and you could argue that this makes him more qualified, compared to Priam, to judge what it means to be like the 'rest of us'.

Somax's definition of a common man would be someone laid-back, a "twister of tales"  who fib in the local taverns, no real legacy, no real purpose etc and depending on your interpretation, you could analyse why it is important that he thinks Hermes is unlike him and the rest. Although (can't remember 100% - learned this in term 2) it is Priam that first recognises Hermes as the "god of the underworld"

So I don't think this event is as significant as the rest. However, if read together with Iris' message to Priam, it could be saying something about divine intervention/gods/kingship/chance/fate/causation (up to you - the beauty of Ransom is that the message you get from it is up to your interpretations).