CLOUDSTREET - Textual integrity/Value in study - how bout value in the question (1 Viewer)

[yorky]

Quick, yes he is a significant character, but 2 bits, just about him hardly validate an essay, i know everyone i spoke to is not impressed... thoughts?

 

[bananasmoothy]

Fish would've been more suitable for an essay IMO, but who knows the minds of markers.

Apart from Fish though, I would say Quick is the most significant. There's a lot that you can derive from his actions that I discovered/made-up (I prefer "discovered") while writing the essay (thankfully not after)

 

[wytcpl]

You didn't have to focus on Quick at all. If you read the question again, you'll see that it starts with "To what extent..."

You could have said, "To a very limited extent, Quick ...etc" and focused instead on all the other aspects which are more significant in your understanding of Cloudstreet.

And just find two scenes that support your view i.e. a scene which doesn't include Quick.

 

[bananasmoothy]

Well, some of us prefer not to think in exams, and do it the easier way.

 

[yorky]

most people's interpretation of the question wytcpl, was the other although good luck to u with that line of argument. i think it was implying an understanding of quick's characterisation "enduring power of winton's characterisation of Quick' and u would have to stipulate an understanding of the characterisation of quick as well as saying that it is unimportant to u. i dont think it would be enough to simply say it is unimportant, i think it required an evaluation of his characterisation of quick and then a discussion of why or why not that impacted your personal response. but definitely an interesting question, didn't favour prepared essay types whatsoever. did anybody else substantiate a disagreement?

 

[particle1]

i disagreed with the question because it said "to what extent". if it said "discus..." or "how..." then that would imply an understanding of Quick's characterisation is imperative to the question. also, the fact that it said "your PERSONAL reading" means you can pretty much say whatever you like as long as you have a strong line of argument.

there is nothing wrong with resisting the question- i know many people did because never before has the question been so specific, and it probably leads to a wider variety of responses if everyone is encouraged to provide their personal readings... who knows.

and i am laughing to myself cos i am typing this in the "Quick" reply box...

oh how sad sad sad i am...lol

 

[jackal8]

wtycpl is correct, however, it just so happened that a pretty much studied for that exact question.. ym rpemade essay ws centred around quick in two specific segments, no joke

suckerzz

pluus wytcpl sits arcoss form em in english (and extension)

 

[sherryshoo]

at first reading i though the question and to an extent still do think the question and ridiculous
for king lear people the question focused on him, makes perfect sense why then didnt we get fish to then tie into spirituality, reconcilliation style of writing etc

but when you think about it, why give something that easy for a book with so many layers, god damb tho quick was hard. think it just took some carful thinking how you could still link textual integrity into it. and hey we all chose advanced

all over now anyways, nothing any of us can do, just have faith in what you wrote

 

[cbadvanced]

now that i think about it, i shouldve just wrote:

"To NO extent does Quick's character shape any form of understanding within the novel. My prepared essay is what is significant."

OR

"To no extent does Quick's character shape a personal response for readers such as myself and other critics. My personal response to this question is: FUCK YOU. I believe this is what is significant"

then start writing
seriously if i had the idea at the time I wouldve done it (serious)

 

[DjCarrad]

I would postulate that those who answered against Quick being significant would immediately have a more sophistocated argument, and if you kept mentioning that your points were more important than Quick for x, y and z reasons, then you're showing deeper understanding and evaluation. It was a very unfair question, but perhaps could work out in your favour.

 

[sensun679]

Actually, people needed to be careful. If all the examiners wanted is your own regurgitated essay, they would have said simply write a personal response like the previous years.

However, given that this year they are being so hard and specific, they wanted to stop people regurgitating planned essays, so they made Quick the focus, so whislt it is okay to say Quick is insignificant, you would need to SAY WHY that was the case. Simply ignoring him, in effect would ignore the terms of the question. After all, "to what extent" in a question requires a personal judgement, but in doing so you need to provide reasons why or why not based on your knowledge.

This was a HARD exam, especially for Cloudstreet people where there are so many characters. I cannot believe how specific the Question was!

 

[soul_VL]

Yeah well i liked the question, it was a little one lined just like the creative writing for journeys... bullshit you really had to think of two good scenes where you could make an essay on it. i think i did pretty good though

 

[Princesa]

for all the people who liked this question - are you mentally retarded? although i am generally good in english, i really hate the subject (with a passion)and was dreading this exam the most. all my preparation for Cloudstreet went down the drain when i saw this question - it was totally out of teh left feild and completely unlike anything i practised, so excuse me when i vent at the poeple who liked this. screw you. LOL

BTW i know of three people who came out of that exam saying "who the hell is Quick?"