Module B: Critical Study of Texts (1 Viewer)

[lambird]

Like some of you guys who planned for 3 speeches, i actually wrote about 3 speeches, even though it specified 2, for the same reason - it wasn't sufficient enough for me to only focus on 2, would i be penalised?

me too!! thats what i did, im not sure if we will be. i hope not :mad1:

 

[miyoko]

me too!! thats what i did, im not sure if we will be. i hope not :mad1:

I'm finally not alone!!, my friends told me that they might ignore the thid speech...

 

[s2indie]

How the fucking fuck was I supposed to apply a fucking Feminist bildunsroman reading to Heathcliff?! Goddamn Board of Studies!!!

I totally agree! Heathcliff is so freaking marxist-y. ARGH, and the whole "TWO episodes..." crap - which I didn't.

I just referred to Heathcliff stupid boring shit. I would've much preferred Catherine.:burn:

Definitely my worst essay of the day. *prays i did well in Paper 1*

 

[boz.]

The King Lear question was the worst thing ever!! what the hell was with the whole "shakespeares characterisation of king lear"... i got confused as to what you were actually meant to write about.
so many people didnt even get the question. i only wrote 5 pages

 

[ashh]

omg wuthering heights...if i didnt have 2 give the book back i wuld stab it until i ran out of energy. that was such a shit question. and 2 episodes no thanks i bullshitted my way thru that...so glad its over...

 

[sickofjourneys]

hey carmen,
look, scroll down this whole page. was there one 'oh i luuuuuurve king lear. i aaaaaaacesd king lea'? no. n neither did i. i came home thinking bout how bad i did n how good everyone did. so in need of some comfort i logged on here n found ppl like me. the majority found it had. so i wouldnt woory bout it dat much. gd luk with evertythin else. me

 

[Riviet]

I thought the Yeats question was tough, plus it was my weakest module which didn't help either. Only managed to get out 6 pages, and I was only able to use 1 critique plus my own context.

 

[Ragetallica]

I totally agree! Heathcliff is so freaking marxist-y. ARGH, and the whole "TWO episodes..." crap - which I didn't.

I just referred to Heathcliff stupid boring shit. I would've much preferred Catherine.:burn:

Definitely my worst essay of the day. *prays i did well in Paper 1*

I used freudian and marxist for the readings.. both worked well although Marxist was stronger.. and as for two episodes i wrote about two scenes in particular.. first being where Heathcliff abuses Hindley after he passes out drunk as it shows the revenge theme really well.. second episode is where Catherine is dying and Heathcliff wont let go of her when Edgar comes in.. shows their love and how it conquers all etc.. i hated the question too.. definately wasnt expecting that but oh well

 

[TimtheEnchanter]

Liger:why? what? how????????? what did you write about and how did you link in other interpretations and readings?


Well I argued that to me Shakespeare's characterisation of King Lear supported my feminist interpretation of the play. I argued that as a character he represents a conservative patriarchal leader. I then argued that not only Lear but also other males in the play are misogynistic and demonise females etc. supporting my feminist reading. I used a number of quotes where Lear discriminates women ie "pelican daughters, "sulphorous pit" and "she foxes". I stated how not only Shakespeare's characterisation of Lear had lent me to a feminist response but also how the relevence of the issue to my time and place was also a major factor. I then also argued that feminist critics such as Janet Adelman, Kathleen McKluskie and Linda Bamber also helped to shape my personal response.
I also stated how I believed that the play of King Lear was about property, inheritance and class struggles. I argued that critics like John Dollimore who relate how Jacobean context influenced meaning in the text was important in my understanding of the play and my own response. I argued much like the critic Alexander Shurbanov that Lear represented a totalitarian leader obsessed with power which ultimately led to his arrogance. I used act one scene one as an extract to highlight Lears obsession with material wealth."Vines of France" "Milk Of Burgundy such that it highlights the paternal contest more so as a material contest of wealth. Similarly I related how context has influenced my personal response and talked about the influence of critics and Kosintevs marxist production which explored the wider implications on the public of Lears downfall. I looked at act 3 sc 4 and suggested that Lears renerwal was due to his understanding of the plight of the poor. "O I have taken too little care of this".
And yeah,
I just said that Shakespeare's characterisation of King Lear influenced to an extent the way I react to and look at the play, however, it was my time, place and context that ultimately determined the way i reacted and led me to my personal response which is a strange mix of feminism and marxism....

That was quite a post, but I don't see why we're sposed to analyse texts from the feminist, marxist etc perspective (not that it matters now). This has been an issue of debate in politics since someone accused the cirriculum of being Left-wing. If this doesn't make people realise that when you talk to someone you don't weed out every little piece of verbal meaning imaginable along with their posture and the rest of the misen'scene then nothing will.
I always suspected the English course was a crock, just a way to make the gov't look like it's upping the average IQ of the common man (or woman) or making typical conversations more interesting, but I have yet to discover a profession besides professional critic that requires the level of mutilation of texts that we have just learnt.

It's not just me who thinks that studying texts in all these ways that authors never intended destroyed the experience of reading/viewing the text, is it?

When I told my Enlgish teacher that I didn't have to finish the HCS to get where I wanted to go, she simply asked me: "then why are you here?". This is when it finally clicked that not only is the point of school void of learning for the sake of learning, but it's new point is to present students as a product of the business that are schools. What happened to mankind's thirst for knowledge?

For those of you doing Modern History and Weimar Germany, this stuff is gold! It tells us how things ended up the way they did, why they did, who stuffed up where and also gives a good idea of how Iraq will wrap up.

I know I won't be the only one feeling a bit put out if i never have to use my hard-learnt English skills again after all this hoo-ha.

 

[gracerawl88]

i thought the speeches q was good, wen reading thru i saw the TWO speeches n thought score! although it did look a bit bare compared to the other answers, and perhaps 3 should have been better, but ran out of time anyway. was writing conclusion on powerplay after she sed pens down..

 

[tuzzah]

King Lear was soooo wierd!!!

But the question asked 'to what extent', so I hijacked the whole question and just talked about my own perspective..

Hopefully it works!!!!

 

[lindataylor]

Like some of you guys who planned for 3 speeches, i actually wrote about 3 speeches, even though it specified 2, for the same reason - it wasn't sufficient enough for me to only focus on 2, would i be penalised?

well i planned for 3 speeches and was stumped when they only said two, i don't know whether you would be penalised - i hope not, but the way i saw it was that if a question had specified TWO related material etc then i would have only put two in, but considering that it was the MAIN text it might be ok to do one extra.

well, you'll find out....good luck

 

[DjCarrad]

That was quite a post, but I don't see why we're sposed to analyse texts from the feminist, marxist etc perspective (not that it matters now). This has been an issue of debate in politics since someone accused the cirriculum of being Left-wing. If this doesn't make people realise that when you talk to someone you don't weed out every little piece of verbal meaning imaginable along with their posture and the rest of the misen'scene then nothing will.
I always suspected the English course was a crock, just a way to make the gov't look like it's upping the average IQ of the common man (or woman) or making typical conversations more interesting, but I have yet to discover a profession besides professional critic that requires the level of mutilation of texts that we have just learnt.

It's not just me who thinks that studying texts in all these ways that authors never intended destroyed the experience of reading/viewing the text, is it?

When I told my Enlgish teacher that I didn't have to finish the HCS to get where I wanted to go, she simply asked me: "then why are you here?". This is when it finally clicked that not only is the point of school void of learning for the sake of learning, but it's new point is to present students as a product of the business that are schools. What happened to mankind's thirst for knowledge?

For those of you doing Modern History and Weimar Germany, this stuff is gold! It tells us how things ended up the way they did, why they did, who stuffed up where and also gives a good idea of how Iraq will wrap up.

I know I won't be the only one feeling a bit put out if i never have to use my hard-learnt English skills again after all this hoo-ha.

The only 'reading' you were required to apply in this module was your own. Read the freaking notes from the marking centre for this module from the past couple of years. It's not difficult stuff, it says plainly that you don't have to, because it's not the point of this module. Don't trust me? Just going off what my head-teacher has been hammering into us all year, and he's the President of the English Teachers Association of NSW. Perhaps he's right.

OK Tim, you don't like the Advanced course? I have an awesome solution that you perhaps should have applied:
Standard. Don't need advanced, then why do it?

the vendetta against English teachers that you seem to have very little grasp on really has very little to do with the way that english is taught in schools. It just provides a nice convenient angle the Howard government can take to oppose the way it's taught to get more power. I don't know if anyone else takes note of stuff that happens with our government, but they're really trying to take away power from the states for almost everything, and education is definately on the cards. The Howard government has been targetting the way that English is being taught in schools, with a focus on how we have been encouraged to adopt out own opinion of texts. Previously the ideology surrounding Literature has been that there is one way of understanding things. There is one 'proper' understanding, and that's how it's to be understood, thankyou very much.
I think everyone here can realise how terrible that would be. You would be stripped of your own opinion, that at the moment is as valid as anyone else's, simply because you've read the book and understood it.
This is what the markers are after. They want to know what you think of the book, and why.
Ah, the 'why'. This is where the necessity for analysis comes in. It's all very well to come along and say "My understanding of Cloudstreet was not greatly affected by the characterisation of Quick", but so what? So you show what made you come to this decision. that's where you exaplin that perhaps Quick is a stereotype, and you believe that Sam and Lester's contrast makes them archetypes as they show the emerging differences in characters which typify the generation just past and the current generation, or whatever you want to say.
Now, that's all well and good, but how does Winton do this? That's when you choose your specific moments, quote them, and tell the effect of the quote.

And if you look at English this way, it makes so much more sense, doesn't it? English becomes about learning skills to justify yourself and decisions you may one day make in the workplace. It gives you the skills to write reports and put words together, which is considered rather advantagous for anyone who wishes to be able to further themselves in their career. It allows you to say "We should take this policy/project direction. We should do it because of this. I have evaluated these studies, and they have shown the advantages and disadvantages. Here are some examples of what we could do." What other subject teaches you how to do that?

And just as a disclaimer, English Advanced will probably be my worst subject, I don't enjoy writing essays in such a small amount of time, and I find it hard to write at such speed and express ideas that I want to. However, I do see the point of English, simply through a bit of logic.

And about the political views: I have none, I think both sides of politics in this country are in a woeful state, but it's obvious to see what the government's doing. They've been doing it to English, and they had a pretty heavy go just around the time that the exam papers were being written: is it any surprise that the backlash was to write papers that focussed strongly on your personal opinion? but anyway, the government has a go at english, and they also had a go at history a little while ago, if you remember. I'm not so up on this one, but I think it was the same kind of thing: Howard wanted to make history taught from a very prescribed, strict understanding. Just as he wants english to be. And won't this ring true with our lovely aging population, full of people grumbling about "well, jolly good way to be taught, that's how it was done for us, those young whipper snappers ought to be taught the same!"
It's a vote winner. The federal government does not like the way english is being taught, contrary to your point Tim. The state probably likes it, but they have nothing to do with the syllabuses. I think you'll find that's up to the board of studies, and at the time of writing, was free from this kind of political influence.


On a more relevant note: Cloudstreet fucking sucked, but was very doable when you realised the loophole

 

[sarah89]

oh god that was the worst essay i have EVER done.
king lear question just threw me off, thinking back i couldve done so much better but i was just so spun out. eeeek. characterisation in two extracts???
i kinda of went through and said that different interpretations of lear as a character throughout history made me realise that king lear is a play of high textual integrity.
examined lear as a product of histroical context, then family reading, then feminist.
really should have argued about the extent thing but i was not thinking and thought itd be easier to agree.
was hoping for about 56/60 for this paper....that was my trial mark.
i think i just saw hopes for a 98 uai go down the drain....
but i was rnaked 2nd overall, should be right????

 

[Willem]

Hmm I belive, "TimtheEnchanter", that you havn't really thought through what your saying, first of all are you not a bit misinformed? the english syllabus is designed by the state run Board of Studies and not the Howard government, I also find it amusing your naïve interpretation of the purpose of the english advanced syllabus, if its purpose is to make us seem more interesting or intelligent in conversation, you have obviously not been paying attention in class, i think you should get your facts straight like djcarrad before making such ridiculous comments.

 

[SS06]

For the "personal respone" part of the question did we have to write in first person? I did'nt do this and I'm very worried!! What else did everyone do?? MY text was King Lear! Also I did teh charcterisation part on many characters rather than doing it just on Lear. Is that wrong?

 

[miss_shady72]

Hmm I belive, "TimtheEnchanter", that you havn't really thought through what your saying, first of all are you not a bit misinformed? the english syllabus is designed by the state run Board of Studies and not the Howard government, I also find it amusing your naïve interpretation of the purpose of the english advanced syllabus, if its purpose is to make us seem more interesting or intelligent in conversation, you have obviously not been paying attention in class, i think you should get your facts straight like djcarrad before making such ridiculous comments.

yeah, i did a marxist interpretation of king lear and for the exam it worked really well because it's very much centred on lear and his widening awareness...but i still thought the question was pretty narrow because it didn't allow that much room, unfortunately i found myself repeating myself a bit and i wanted to do 3 extracts but thought i'd get penalised. definitely this question was wayyy harder than previous years though, does anyone else get the feeling they're shaking things up A LOT for us this year? not fair!
anyway yeah so i find it annoying when people criticise the syllabus of being left-wing, it's a critical study of text, marxist criticism is a valid viewpoint so what's wrong with it?
ah well just glad module b is over, the question could have been way worse for king lear, i agree from what i saw on the paper that some of the other electives eg. cloudstreet were wayy worse :s

 

[miss_shady72]

For the "personal respone" part of the question did we have to write in first person? I did'nt do this and I'm very worried!! What else did everyone do?? MY text was King Lear! Also I did teh charcterisation part on many characters rather than doing it just on Lear. Is that wrong?

no, i didnt write in first person, i think its really hard to pull off and still sound good ...i do king lear too, i mainly talked about lear but added som parts in about otehr characters to say lear wasnt the only influence on my personal response but then specified he was the main one. i realised halfway through that it was "to what extent" or something so that doesnt totally limit the answer, so yep you should be fine!

 

[shinji]

i started off in first person saying how i believe it's a political play.

i don't think i'm gonna get that great marks ... thank god other people got confuzzled by this question too!!! O__O

 

[SS06]

Miss shady72

Thanx heaps! I was so worried but u're comments relieved my stress!!