I can never get 100% in English because I'm missing that extra element (usually depth of analysis or thesis) what am I missing to enter the top? (1 Viewer)

[archietimmins]

(ADDRESS STIMULUS)
In 2017, Margaret Atwood endeavoured to refer to herself as a ‘Realist’ rather than a ‘Feminist.’ Her literature can therefore be understood as a ‘realist’ exploration of the power dynamics of patriarchy, rather than strictly ‘feminist’ literature. Atwood’s novel ‘Hagseed’ from just a year prior is masterful in appropriating ‘The Tempest’ as two texts that explore male patriarchs, egos, and the women they silence through this same ‘realist’ lens. Doing so, these texts engage in a literary dialogue about the power dynamics of patriarchy and how it can restrict parental relationships, female voices, and create dangerous male hubris.

Paternal parenthood in both ‘The Tempest’ and ‘Hag-Seed’ serves as a key point of conflict in how its male characters misunderstand and abuse it. Shakespeare tells a story of a father’s loving protective intent turning controlling and overbearing, while Atwood mirrors this in Felix’s mourning failure to let go of his daughter.
Prospero’s declaration, ‘I have done nothing but in care of thee, my dear one, thee, my daughter’ (Act 1, Scene 2) makes clear to audiences that his behaviour is justified by paternal duty. The repetition of possessive pronouns however exposes the controlling capacity of this loving inclination. The island as the story’s setting solidifies this dynamic of control as a metaphorical restricted space that Prospero rules over as the Patriarch, further establishing the imbalance in his approach to paternal authority.
Academic Marianne Novy argues that Prospero’s control in this way is emblematic of Renaissance patriarchal norms, where daughters were seen as property to be protected and eventually transferred through marriage.
Atwood reimagines this dynamic through Felix’s relationship with his deceased daughter Miranda in a time of less clear but similarly protective understanding of paternalism. The magical realism in Miranda’s representation as a ghost is analogous of his journey of grief, in his attempt to achieve ‘what he couldn’t have in life he might still catch sight of through art.’ Felix’s want to defend Miranda in goals of revenge and grief only imprisons her in ‘his own Prospero’s Island’ as stated in Chapter Seven.
This more directly characterises Felix as an agent of excessive control, and calls audiences to the same dynamic in ‘The Tempest. Shakespeare’s story of parental control is more directly framed in an understanding of patriarchy in this relationship as informed by the modern second and third wave feminism of Atwood’s time.

From male domination comes marginalisation of female voices, a recurring theme of both texts. Miranda in ‘The Tempest’ exists in terms of what men say of her, while Felix similarly confines the own women in his life in this way.
Miranda’s character embodies the archetype of the sheltered daughter. In her limited speech of under two-hundred lines, she is externally framed by the men in her life. In a world defined by male narration, Miranda is caught in the juxtaposition of the goals of control two men, until its resolution is found in Prospero’s concession ‘Worthily purchased, take my daughter.’ Miranda is without authority, as a piece of male property, exposing similar attitudes towards women of Shakespeare’s era. Atwood builds on this in the modern context through Felix instead demonstrating Julia Kristeva’s theory of male imagination as a way of removing the autonomy of women.
Felix’s own daughter exists within Felix’s imagination as a ghost. ‘She remains simple, she remains innocent. … Something constrains her.’ The anaphora in ‘remaining’ points to Felix’s removal of her individuality in his imagining of her, and this ‘constrains’ her memory in a more personified sense. This also serves as a metatextual way of reframing similar control in ‘The Tempest,’ leading to more modern challenges of its contextual ideas.
Anne-Marie Greenland, meanwhile represents the female voices of modern society that Felix fails to listen to. ‘I’m not just a pretty face, you know. I have a brain’ in Chapter 23, employs direct dialogue to challenge stereotypical perceptions of female performers. This sharply Miranda’s more passive characterisation in ‘The Tempest,’ highlighting the evolution of female representation while acknowledging ongoing power dynamics around female voices.

Shakespeare’s classic theme of hubris in his swan song in ‘The Tempest,’ though Miranda as a focal point makes the patriarchal dynamic more obvious. Prospero and Felix, embody the struggle between the desire for control and the need for redemption in their delusions of grandeur over their daughters and other men.
Prospero’s hubris is demonstrated famously in ‘and these, mine enemies, are all knit up in their distractions. They now are in my power.’ The assonance and caesura of this line shows his personal gratification in seeking retribution and gaining power of others.
This links to Renaissance ideas of power as expression of masculinity as expressed in
Machiavelli’s theory of conquest and aggression as masculine, which has extended to a lesser extent to Atwood’s modern-day context.
This is highlighted by Felix’s unreliable narration in demonstrating an inflated sense of his own greatness. He sees himself as a ‘brilliant man’ and views his fall from grace as an act of theft, a shortcoming.
This serves to indirectly characterise a hubris in him that creates similar failures and conflicts to Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest.’ The dangers of male hubris is a clear consequence of male domination.

In conclusion, ‘The Tempest’ and Hag-Seed’ explore the power structures of patriarchies and expose the issues they raise in parenthood, female powerlessness, and the male ego. Shakespeare and Atwood offer incisive critiques of patriarchal structures. While Shakespeare observes the flaws of this as a system of interpersonal power, Atwood endeavours to draw from modern feminist theories to make this message more pointed to societal issues of the modern day.

 

[MoeyNeeds90+]

(ADDRESS STIMULUS)
In 2017, Margaret Atwood endeavoured to refer to herself as a ‘Realist’ rather than a ‘Feminist.’ Her literature can therefore be understood as a ‘realist’ exploration of the power dynamics of patriarchy, rather than strictly ‘feminist’ literature. Atwood’s novel ‘Hagseed’ from just a year prior is masterful in appropriating ‘The Tempest’ as two texts that explore male patriarchs, egos, and the women they silence through this same ‘realist’ lens. Doing so, these texts engage in a literary dialogue about the power dynamics of patriarchy and how it can restrict parental relationships, female voices, and create dangerous male hubris.

Paternal parenthood in both ‘The Tempest’ and ‘Hag-Seed’ serves as a key point of conflict in how its male characters misunderstand and abuse it. Shakespeare tells a story of a father’s loving protective intent turning controlling and overbearing, while Atwood mirrors this in Felix’s mourning failure to let go of his daughter.
Prospero’s declaration, ‘I have done nothing but in care of thee, my dear one, thee, my daughter’ (Act 1, Scene 2) makes clear to audiences that his behaviour is justified by paternal duty. The repetition of possessive pronouns however exposes the controlling capacity of this loving inclination. The island as the story’s setting solidifies this dynamic of control as a metaphorical restricted space that Prospero rules over as the Patriarch, further establishing the imbalance in his approach to paternal authority.
Academic Marianne Novy argues that Prospero’s control in this way is emblematic of Renaissance patriarchal norms, where daughters were seen as property to be protected and eventually transferred through marriage.
Atwood reimagines this dynamic through Felix’s relationship with his deceased daughter Miranda in a time of less clear but similarly protective understanding of paternalism. The magical realism in Miranda’s representation as a ghost is analogous of his journey of grief, in his attempt to achieve ‘what he couldn’t have in life he might still catch sight of through art.’ Felix’s want to defend Miranda in goals of revenge and grief only imprisons her in ‘his own Prospero’s Island’ as stated in Chapter Seven.
This more directly characterises Felix as an agent of excessive control, and calls audiences to the same dynamic in ‘The Tempest. Shakespeare’s story of parental control is more directly framed in an understanding of patriarchy in this relationship as informed by the modern second and third wave feminism of Atwood’s time.

From male domination comes marginalisation of female voices, a recurring theme of both texts. Miranda in ‘The Tempest’ exists in terms of what men say of her, while Felix similarly confines the own women in his life in this way.
Miranda’s character embodies the archetype of the sheltered daughter. In her limited speech of under two-hundred lines, she is externally framed by the men in her life. In a world defined by male narration, Miranda is caught in the juxtaposition of the goals of control two men, until its resolution is found in Prospero’s concession ‘Worthily purchased, take my daughter.’ Miranda is without authority, as a piece of male property, exposing similar attitudes towards women of Shakespeare’s era. Atwood builds on this in the modern context through Felix instead demonstrating Julia Kristeva’s theory of male imagination as a way of removing the autonomy of women.
Felix’s own daughter exists within Felix’s imagination as a ghost. ‘She remains simple, she remains innocent. … Something constrains her.’ The anaphora in ‘remaining’ points to Felix’s removal of her individuality in his imagining of her, and this ‘constrains’ her memory in a more personified sense. This also serves as a metatextual way of reframing similar control in ‘The Tempest,’ leading to more modern challenges of its contextual ideas.
Anne-Marie Greenland, meanwhile represents the female voices of modern society that Felix fails to listen to. ‘I’m not just a pretty face, you know. I have a brain’ in Chapter 23, employs direct dialogue to challenge stereotypical perceptions of female performers. This sharply Miranda’s more passive characterisation in ‘The Tempest,’ highlighting the evolution of female representation while acknowledging ongoing power dynamics around female voices.

Shakespeare’s classic theme of hubris in his swan song in ‘The Tempest,’ though Miranda as a focal point makes the patriarchal dynamic more obvious. Prospero and Felix, embody the struggle between the desire for control and the need for redemption in their delusions of grandeur over their daughters and other men.
Prospero’s hubris is demonstrated famously in ‘and these, mine enemies, are all knit up in their distractions. They now are in my power.’ The assonance and caesura of this line shows his personal gratification in seeking retribution and gaining power of others.
This links to Renaissance ideas of power as expression of masculinity as expressed in
Machiavelli’s theory of conquest and aggression as masculine, which has extended to a lesser extent to Atwood’s modern-day context.
This is highlighted by Felix’s unreliable narration in demonstrating an inflated sense of his own greatness. He sees himself as a ‘brilliant man’ and views his fall from grace as an act of theft, a shortcoming.
This serves to indirectly characterise a hubris in him that creates similar failures and conflicts to Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest.’ The dangers of male hubris is a clear consequence of male domination.

In conclusion, ‘The Tempest’ and Hag-Seed’ explore the power structures of patriarchies and expose the issues they raise in parenthood, female powerlessness, and the male ego. Shakespeare and Atwood offer incisive critiques of patriarchal structures. While Shakespeare observes the flaws of this as a system of interpersonal power, Atwood endeavours to draw from modern feminist theories to make this message more pointed to societal issues of the modern day.

ur essay structure is out of question eye watering

 

[alphxreturns]

(ADDRESS STIMULUS)
In 2017, Margaret Atwood endeavoured to refer to herself as a ‘Realist’ rather than a ‘Feminist.’ Her literature can therefore be understood as a ‘realist’ exploration of the power dynamics of patriarchy, rather than strictly ‘feminist’ literature. Atwood’s novel ‘Hagseed’ from just a year prior is masterful in appropriating ‘The Tempest’ as two texts that explore male patriarchs, egos, and the women they silence through this same ‘realist’ lens. Doing so, these texts engage in a literary dialogue about the power dynamics of patriarchy and how it can restrict parental relationships, female voices, and create dangerous male hubris.

Paternal parenthood in both ‘The Tempest’ and ‘Hag-Seed’ serves as a key point of conflict in how its male characters misunderstand and abuse it. Shakespeare tells a story of a father’s loving protective intent turning controlling and overbearing, while Atwood mirrors this in Felix’s mourning failure to let go of his daughter.
Prospero’s declaration, ‘I have done nothing but in care of thee, my dear one, thee, my daughter’ (Act 1, Scene 2) makes clear to audiences that his behaviour is justified by paternal duty. The repetition of possessive pronouns however exposes the controlling capacity of this loving inclination. The island as the story’s setting solidifies this dynamic of control as a metaphorical restricted space that Prospero rules over as the Patriarch, further establishing the imbalance in his approach to paternal authority.
Academic Marianne Novy argues that Prospero’s control in this way is emblematic of Renaissance patriarchal norms, where daughters were seen as property to be protected and eventually transferred through marriage.
Atwood reimagines this dynamic through Felix’s relationship with his deceased daughter Miranda in a time of less clear but similarly protective understanding of paternalism. The magical realism in Miranda’s representation as a ghost is analogous of his journey of grief, in his attempt to achieve ‘what he couldn’t have in life he might still catch sight of through art.’ Felix’s want to defend Miranda in goals of revenge and grief only imprisons her in ‘his own Prospero’s Island’ as stated in Chapter Seven.
This more directly characterises Felix as an agent of excessive control, and calls audiences to the same dynamic in ‘The Tempest. Shakespeare’s story of parental control is more directly framed in an understanding of patriarchy in this relationship as informed by the modern second and third wave feminism of Atwood’s time.

From male domination comes marginalisation of female voices, a recurring theme of both texts. Miranda in ‘The Tempest’ exists in terms of what men say of her, while Felix similarly confines the own women in his life in this way.
Miranda’s character embodies the archetype of the sheltered daughter. In her limited speech of under two-hundred lines, she is externally framed by the men in her life. In a world defined by male narration, Miranda is caught in the juxtaposition of the goals of control two men, until its resolution is found in Prospero’s concession ‘Worthily purchased, take my daughter.’ Miranda is without authority, as a piece of male property, exposing similar attitudes towards women of Shakespeare’s era. Atwood builds on this in the modern context through Felix instead demonstrating Julia Kristeva’s theory of male imagination as a way of removing the autonomy of women.
Felix’s own daughter exists within Felix’s imagination as a ghost. ‘She remains simple, she remains innocent. … Something constrains her.’ The anaphora in ‘remaining’ points to Felix’s removal of her individuality in his imagining of her, and this ‘constrains’ her memory in a more personified sense. This also serves as a metatextual way of reframing similar control in ‘The Tempest,’ leading to more modern challenges of its contextual ideas.
Anne-Marie Greenland, meanwhile represents the female voices of modern society that Felix fails to listen to. ‘I’m not just a pretty face, you know. I have a brain’ in Chapter 23, employs direct dialogue to challenge stereotypical perceptions of female performers. This sharply Miranda’s more passive characterisation in ‘The Tempest,’ highlighting the evolution of female representation while acknowledging ongoing power dynamics around female voices.

Shakespeare’s classic theme of hubris in his swan song in ‘The Tempest,’ though Miranda as a focal point makes the patriarchal dynamic more obvious. Prospero and Felix, embody the struggle between the desire for control and the need for redemption in their delusions of grandeur over their daughters and other men. Prospero’s hubris is demonstrated famously in ‘and these, mine enemies, are all knit up in their distractions. They now are in my power.’ The assonance and caesura of this line shows his personal gratification in seeking retribution and gaining power of others. This links to Renaissance ideas of power as expression of masculinity as expressed in
Machiavelli’s theory of conquest and aggression as masculine, which has extended to a lesser extent to Atwood’s modern-day context.
This is highlighted by Felix’s unreliable narration in demonstrating an inflated sense of his own greatness. He sees himself as a ‘brilliant man’ and views his fall from grace as an act of theft, a shortcoming.
This serves to indirectly characterise a hubris in him that creates similar failures and conflicts to Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest.’ The dangers of male hubris is a clear consequence of male domination.

In conclusion, ‘The Tempest’ and Hag-Seed’ explore the power structures of patriarchies and expose the issues they raise in parenthood, female powerlessness, and the male ego. Shakespeare and Atwood offer incisive critiques of patriarchal structures. While Shakespeare observes the flaws of this as a system of interpersonal power, Atwood endeavours to draw from modern feminist theories to make this message more pointed to societal issues of the modern day.

would be good to constantly refer to the textual conversations/resonances/dissonances as in seen in the rubric, also would be good to mention Shakespeare at least once in the intro/thesis thing

 

[lunaaaa4403]

ur teachers love (look, chances are, unless you go to a private school that inflates tf out of ppls marks, its probably 20/20 to a hsc standard. oh and unless like 20 other ppl in ur class got full marks)

 

[yourlocaliga]

(ADDRESS STIMULUS)
In 2017, Margaret Atwood endeavoured to refer to herself as a ‘Realist’ rather than a ‘Feminist.’ Her literature can therefore be understood as a ‘realist’ exploration of the power dynamics of patriarchy, rather than strictly ‘feminist’ literature. Atwood’s novel ‘Hagseed’ from just a year prior is masterful in appropriating ‘The Tempest’ as two texts that explore male patriarchs, egos, and the women they silence through this same ‘realist’ lens. Doing so, these texts engage in a literary dialogue about the power dynamics of patriarchy and how it can restrict parental relationships, female voices, and create dangerous male hubris.

Paternal parenthood in both ‘The Tempest’ and ‘Hag-Seed’ serves as a key point of conflict in how its male characters misunderstand and abuse it. Shakespeare tells a story of a father’s loving protective intent turning controlling and overbearing, while Atwood mirrors this in Felix’s mourning failure to let go of his daughter.
Prospero’s declaration, ‘I have done nothing but in care of thee, my dear one, thee, my daughter’ (Act 1, Scene 2) makes clear to audiences that his behaviour is justified by paternal duty. The repetition of possessive pronouns however exposes the controlling capacity of this loving inclination. The island as the story’s setting solidifies this dynamic of control as a metaphorical restricted space that Prospero rules over as the Patriarch, further establishing the imbalance in his approach to paternal authority.
Academic Marianne Novy argues that Prospero’s control in this way is emblematic of Renaissance patriarchal norms, where daughters were seen as property to be protected and eventually transferred through marriage.
Atwood reimagines this dynamic through Felix’s relationship with his deceased daughter Miranda in a time of less clear but similarly protective understanding of paternalism. The magical realism in Miranda’s representation as a ghost is analogous of his journey of grief, in his attempt to achieve ‘what he couldn’t have in life he might still catch sight of through art.’ Felix’s want to defend Miranda in goals of revenge and grief only imprisons her in ‘his own Prospero’s Island’ as stated in Chapter Seven.
This more directly characterises Felix as an agent of excessive control, and calls audiences to the same dynamic in ‘The Tempest. Shakespeare’s story of parental control is more directly framed in an understanding of patriarchy in this relationship as informed by the modern second and third wave feminism of Atwood’s time.

From male domination comes marginalisation of female voices, a recurring theme of both texts. Miranda in ‘The Tempest’ exists in terms of what men say of her, while Felix similarly confines the own women in his life in this way.
Miranda’s character embodies the archetype of the sheltered daughter. In her limited speech of under two-hundred lines, she is externally framed by the men in her life. In a world defined by male narration, Miranda is caught in the juxtaposition of the goals of control two men, until its resolution is found in Prospero’s concession ‘Worthily purchased, take my daughter.’ Miranda is without authority, as a piece of male property, exposing similar attitudes towards women of Shakespeare’s era. Atwood builds on this in the modern context through Felix instead demonstrating Julia Kristeva’s theory of male imagination as a way of removing the autonomy of women.
Felix’s own daughter exists within Felix’s imagination as a ghost. ‘She remains simple, she remains innocent. … Something constrains her.’ The anaphora in ‘remaining’ points to Felix’s removal of her individuality in his imagining of her, and this ‘constrains’ her memory in a more personified sense. This also serves as a metatextual way of reframing similar control in ‘The Tempest,’ leading to more modern challenges of its contextual ideas.
Anne-Marie Greenland, meanwhile represents the female voices of modern society that Felix fails to listen to. ‘I’m not just a pretty face, you know. I have a brain’ in Chapter 23, employs direct dialogue to challenge stereotypical perceptions of female performers. This sharply Miranda’s more passive characterisation in ‘The Tempest,’ highlighting the evolution of female representation while acknowledging ongoing power dynamics around female voices.

Shakespeare’s classic theme of hubris in his swan song in ‘The Tempest,’ though Miranda as a focal point makes the patriarchal dynamic more obvious. Prospero and Felix, embody the struggle between the desire for control and the need for redemption in their delusions of grandeur over their daughters and other men.
Prospero’s hubris is demonstrated famously in ‘and these, mine enemies, are all knit up in their distractions. They now are in my power.’ The assonance and caesura of this line shows his personal gratification in seeking retribution and gaining power of others.
This links to Renaissance ideas of power as expression of masculinity as expressed in
Machiavelli’s theory of conquest and aggression as masculine, which has extended to a lesser extent to Atwood’s modern-day context.
This is highlighted by Felix’s unreliable narration in demonstrating an inflated sense of his own greatness. He sees himself as a ‘brilliant man’ and views his fall from grace as an act of theft, a shortcoming.
This serves to indirectly characterise a hubris in him that creates similar failures and conflicts to Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest.’ The dangers of male hubris is a clear consequence of male domination.

In conclusion, ‘The Tempest’ and Hag-Seed’ explore the power structures of patriarchies and expose the issues they raise in parenthood, female powerlessness, and the male ego. Shakespeare and Atwood offer incisive critiques of patriarchal structures. While Shakespeare observes the flaws of this as a system of interpersonal power, Atwood endeavours to draw from modern feminist theories to make this message more pointed to societal issues of the modern day.

im not sure if thsi is ur full essay, but imo i feel like ur paras are too short -- it is difficult to provide a deep analysis or really drive a certain point home with only like 2 quotes a para

 

[gammahydroxybutyrate]

Splitting this into two while I procrastinate the essay I'm actually supposed to be writing.

In 2017, Margaret Atwood endeavoured to refer to herself as a ‘Realist’ rather than a ‘Feminist.’ Her literature can therefore be understood as a ‘realist’ exploration of the power dynamics of patriarchy, rather than strictly ‘feminist’ literature. Atwood’s novel ‘Hagseed’ from just a year prior is masterful in appropriating ‘The Tempest’ as two texts that explore male patriarchs, egos, and the women they silence through this same ‘realist’ lens. Doing so, these texts engage in a literary dialogue about the power dynamics of patriarchy and how it can restrict parental relationships, female voices, and create dangerous male hubris.

A banana calling itself an apple isn't necessarily an apple by virtue of that fact. Atwood giving a descriptor in relation to her political views doesn't directly go to the meaning or message of the test itself, though it may support a separately evidenced inference as to realist themes drawn from the text itself.

Your description of themes is abstract and non-indicative of how your essay will operate. 'Explore' is a neutral verb. Ego is a very wide term, and it would be helpful to explain how the silencing of women (which isn't itself yet evidenced) is carried out by virtue of realism. It would also be strongly arguable that 'dangerous male hubris' isn't a result of a patriarchial social structure, but more so the prospective origin of it.

Paternal parenthood in both ‘The Tempest’ and ‘Hag-Seed’ serves as a key point of conflict in how its male characters misunderstand and abuse it. Shakespeare tells a story of a father’s loving protective intent turning controlling and overbearing, while Atwood mirrors this in Felix’s mourning failure to let go of his daughter.
Prospero’s declaration, ‘I have done nothing but in care of thee, my dear one, thee, my daughter’ (Act 1, Scene 2) makes clear to audiences that his behaviour is justified by paternal duty. The repetition of possessive pronouns however exposes the controlling capacity of this loving inclination. The island as the story’s setting solidifies this dynamic of control as a metaphorical restricted space that Prospero rules over as the Patriarch, further establishing the imbalance in his approach to paternal authority.
Academic Marianne Novy argues that Prospero’s control in this way is emblematic of Renaissance patriarchal norms, where daughters were seen as property to be protected and eventually transferred through marriage.
Atwood reimagines this dynamic through Felix’s relationship with his deceased daughter Miranda in a time of less clear but similarly protective understanding of paternalism. The magical realism in Miranda’s representation as a ghost is analogous of his journey of grief, in his attempt to achieve ‘what he couldn’t have in life he might still catch sight of through art.’ Felix’s want to defend Miranda in goals of revenge and grief only imprisons her in ‘his own Prospero’s Island’ as stated in Chapter Seven.
This more directly characterises Felix as an agent of excessive control, and calls audiences to the same dynamic in ‘The Tempest. Shakespeare’s story of parental control is more directly framed in an understanding of patriarchy in this relationship as informed by the modern second and third wave feminism of Atwood’s time.

Misunderstanding and 'abusing' paternal parenthood implies that there is a correct view of it, and a correct way to 'utilise it'. You would find people struggle to agree even at this stage on a correct archetype of paternal parenthood. How does the first quote reflect justification by paternal duty? He makes no mention of feeling such an obligation. Referring to it as 'controlling capacity' is distinct from it just being controlling; you are saying it could be controlling. Imbalance implies something being outweighed; this should be canvassed.

You refer to academic critiques; this is unhelpful, in my view, in a HSC English course which is a closed-book exam and should substantially draw upon your own reading of the text. If you can explain how that observation is reached, it will get you marks, but regurgitating another person's view without adding anything further or building upon it is insubstantial. You start to slightly contradict yourself at this point and veer from your topic sentence. If the understanding of paternalism is protecting, how can it also be motivated by revenge and grief? They can co-exist, yes, but you need to note the nuance. The last line is correct, but nothingburger in the context of your argument. At what point have you established a correct version of paternal parenthood so as to contrast with a view of how these characters abuse it? If the social understanding of the time was that the role of the father was to be a certain way, there is contemporaneously nothing misunderstood about it.

From male domination comes marginalisation of female voices, a recurring theme of both texts. Miranda in ‘The Tempest’ exists in terms of what men say of her, while Felix similarly confines the own women in his life in this way.
Miranda’s character embodies the archetype of the sheltered daughter. In her limited speech of under two-hundred lines, she is externally framed by the men in her life. In a world defined by male narration, Miranda is caught in the juxtaposition of the goals of control two men, until its resolution is found in Prospero’s concession ‘Worthily purchased, take my daughter.’ Miranda is without authority, as a piece of male property, exposing similar attitudes towards women of Shakespeare’s era. Atwood builds on this in the modern context through Felix instead demonstrating Julia Kristeva’s theory of male imagination as a way of removing the autonomy of women.
Felix’s own daughter exists within Felix’s imagination as a ghost. ‘She remains simple, she remains innocent. … Something constrains her.’ The anaphora in ‘remaining’ points to Felix’s removal of her individuality in his imagining of her, and this ‘constrains’ her memory in a more personified sense. This also serves as a metatextual way of reframing similar control in ‘The Tempest,’ leading to more modern challenges of its contextual ideas.
Anne-Marie Greenland, meanwhile represents the female voices of modern society that Felix fails to listen to. ‘I’m not just a pretty face, you know. I have a brain’ in Chapter 23, employs direct dialogue to challenge stereotypical perceptions of female performers. This sharply Miranda’s more passive characterisation in ‘The Tempest,’ highlighting the evolution of female representation while acknowledging ongoing power dynamics around female voices.

Shakespeare having particular views as to women isn't able to be extrapolated, by itself, to the views of the era. Isolated, he may have simply been a raging misogynist in an era of progressive female empowerment. "Modern challenges of contextual ideas" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I see what you're saying but it should be rephrased. If you draw more links to the context in the last part, it is a solid argument.

Shakespeare’s classic theme of hubris in his swan song in ‘The Tempest,’ though Miranda as a focal point makes the patriarchal dynamic more obvious. Prospero and Felix, embody the struggle between the desire for control and the need for redemption in their delusions of grandeur over their daughters and other men.
Prospero’s hubris is demonstrated famously in ‘and these, mine enemies, are all knit up in their distractions. They now are in my power.’ The assonance and caesura of this line shows his personal gratification in seeking retribution and gaining power of others.
This links to Renaissance ideas of power as expression of masculinity as expressed in
Machiavelli’s theory of conquest and aggression as masculine, which has extended to a lesser extent to Atwood’s modern-day context.
This is highlighted by Felix’s unreliable narration in demonstrating an inflated sense of his own greatness. He sees himself as a ‘brilliant man’ and views his fall from grace as an act of theft, a shortcoming.
This serves to indirectly characterise a hubris in him that creates similar failures and conflicts to Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest.’ The dangers of male hubris is a clear consequence of male domination.

Desire for redemption after witnessing the damage their delusions of grandeur inflicted upon their daughters and others is a better way to phrase this idea. You also can't use poetic sound-based techniques to show 'personal gratification...in retribution'; its like saying the use of a full stop evidences the character's intention to finalise their legacy with an explosive act of martyrdom. They are techniques based in emphasis, not establishment.

 

[gammahydroxybutyrate]

In conclusion, ‘The Tempest’ and Hag-Seed’ explore the power structures of patriarchies and expose the issues they raise in parenthood, female powerlessness, and the male ego. Shakespeare and Atwood offer incisive critiques of patriarchal structures. While Shakespeare observes the flaws of this as a system of interpersonal power, Atwood endeavours to draw from modern feminist theories to make this message more pointed to societal issues of the modern day.

Shakespeare invented the wheel, Atwood slapped a new colour of paint on it, and that is helpful to us how? What are the societal issues of the modern day, and how do they differ from the context in which The Tempest was written?

Overall, this is a good essay and much better than anything I usually see from HSC students. For the most part, your analysis is cohesive and your points are largely supported by the quotes you use. The issue is, if you're chasing perfection in English, you need an essay with no flaws, which simply means correct analysis and logic. Your issue is logic. You're fundamentally misunderstanding, in a sense, the way that points can be evidenced and argued, and drawing conclusions well past what your evidence demonstrates. If you read a scientific journal or report, you'll notice they don't go beyond what the experiment demonstrates. Throwing 100 cans of aerosol into a fire and having 100 cans explode demonstrates nothing more than cans of aerosol almost always explode when thrown into an open fire. It isn't enough to demonstrate anything past that alone, and conclusions are expressed in terms of reference to the existing literature base and used to generate various hypothesis based on that. You're making good points, but straying from what your essay purportedly set out to do in the first place, the way you establish A, B and C using X & Y is fine, but you're not using A, B & C properly to show how it makes Z, being your actual argument. This basically aligns with your initial observation of lacking depth of analysis and 'thesis'. The analysis itself is good quality, but how you use the result of that is lacking. The essay is a headache to read, because your analysis is complex and generally correct, but you're not doing anything worthwhile with it, and probably not answering the question to a proper level of detail and critical engagement.

tutoring is too much work this is why i don't do it anymore lmao

 

[Socialism]

Splitting this into two while I procrastinate the essay I'm actually supposed to be writing.



A banana calling itself an apple isn't necessarily an apple by virtue of that fact. Atwood giving a descriptor in relation to her political views doesn't directly go to the meaning or message of the test itself, though it may support a separately evidenced inference as to realist themes drawn from the text itself.

Your description of themes is abstract and non-indicative of how your essay will operate. 'Explore' is a neutral verb. Ego is a very wide term, and it would be helpful to explain how the silencing of women (which isn't itself yet evidenced) is carried out by virtue of realism. It would also be strongly arguable that 'dangerous male hubris' isn't a result of a patriarchial social structure, but more so the prospective origin of it.



Misunderstanding and 'abusing' paternal parenthood implies that there is a correct view of it, and a correct way to 'utilise it'. You would find people struggle to agree even at this stage on a correct archetype of paternal parenthood. How does the first quote reflect justification by paternal duty? He makes no mention of feeling such an obligation. Referring to it as 'controlling capacity' is distinct from it just being controlling; you are saying it could be controlling. Imbalance implies something being outweighed; this should be canvassed.

You refer to academic critiques; this is unhelpful, in my view, in a HSC English course which is a closed-book exam and should substantially draw upon your own reading of the text. If you can explain how that observation is reached, it will get you marks, but regurgitating another person's view without adding anything further or building upon it is insubstantial. You start to slightly contradict yourself at this point and veer from your topic sentence. If the understanding of paternalism is protecting, how can it also be motivated by revenge and grief? They can co-exist, yes, but you need to note the nuance. The last line is correct, but nothingburger in the context of your argument. At what point have you established a correct version of paternal parenthood so as to contrast with a view of how these characters abuse it? If the social understanding of the time was that the role of the father was to be a certain way, there is contemporaneously nothing misunderstood about it.


Shakespeare having particular views as to women isn't able to be extrapolated, by itself, to the views of the era. Isolated, he may have simply been a raging misogynist in an era of progressive female empowerment. "Modern challenges of contextual ideas" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I see what you're saying but it should be rephrased. If you draw more links to the context in the last part, it is a solid argument.


Desire for redemption after witnessing the damage their delusions of grandeur inflicted upon their daughters and others is a better way to phrase this idea. You also can't use poetic sound-based techniques to show 'personal gratification...in retribution'; its like saying the use of a full stop evidences the character's intention to finalise their legacy with an explosive act of martyrdom. They are techniques based in emphasis, not establishment.

Shakespeare invented the wheel, Atwood slapped a new colour of paint on it, and that is helpful to us how? What are the societal issues of the modern day, and how do they differ from the context in which The Tempest was written?

Overall, this is a good essay and much better than anything I usually see from HSC students. For the most part, your analysis is cohesive and your points are largely supported by the quotes you use. The issue is, if you're chasing perfection in English, you need an essay with no flaws, which simply means correct analysis and logic. Your issue is logic. You're fundamentally misunderstanding, in a sense, the way that points can be evidenced and argued, and drawing conclusions well past what your evidence demonstrates. If you read a scientific journal or report, you'll notice they don't go beyond what the experiment demonstrates. Throwing 100 cans of aerosol into a fire and having 100 cans explode demonstrates nothing more than cans of aerosol almost always explode when thrown into an open fire. It isn't enough to demonstrate anything past that alone, and conclusions are expressed in terms of reference to the existing literature base and used to generate various hypothesis based on that. You're making good points, but straying from what your essay purportedly set out to do in the first place, the way you establish A, B and C using X & Y is fine, but you're not using A, B & C properly to show how it makes Z, being your actual argument. This basically aligns with your initial observation of lacking depth of analysis and 'thesis'. The analysis itself is good quality, but how you use the result of that is lacking. The essay is a headache to read, because your analysis is complex and generally correct, but you're not doing anything worthwhile with it, and probably not answering the question to a proper level of detail and critical engagement.

tutoring is too much work this is why i don't do it anymore lmao

... wow ...
i am absolutely blown away...
good response - scratch that AMAZING RESPONSE holy fuck ur doing SO MUCH

 

[Cute-Duckie]

ngl I only skimmed it, but you need some more historical context, links back to the question / point you are making, and to massively improve your flow between sentences... it is unclear why you are writing a lot of things, and you are presenting your analysis quite basically and without clear conceptual focus. like it's there if I look closely, but if you increase that clarity then your marks will go up a lot!