English Paper 1 (TZ2 - SL)

It's been well over 24 hours since I finished my exam -- so if I'm correct we are allowed to talk..

What did you guys do? I did the poem about "Dinner Party 1940" and could not find the damn thing anywhere after the exam!

I think I wrote it very well, with a clean structure and precise language, though I don't think my address of metaphorical issues was enough (though sufficient)

What did you guys talk about, etc.?

It's been well over 24 hours since I finished my exam -- so if I'm correct we are allowed to talk..

What did you guys do? I did the poem about "Dinner Party 1940" and could not find the damn thing anywhere after the exam!

I think I wrote it very well, with a clean structure and precise language, though I don't think my address of metaphorical issues was enough (though sufficient)

What did you guys talk about, etc.?

Oh is that what the cock-tails was about? I didn't even mention it =/ Total mind blank!! Instead I focused on the 'well-bred' description of the news reader, indicating that it was slightly animalistic, and could suggest that the news reader is 'well trained' in not reacting to the horrors of war which is actually a giant metaphor for the entire poem's message - that the poet is unhappy about people becoming immune to the death of war.

I apsolutely loved the poem, so much to write about and so many aspects I'm so thankful it was a good one! Some of my friends from higher didn't really like their poem - something about a giant silver worm?!

What did you guys think about "The well-bred voice from Daventry did not grow any less well-bred, and did not speak of more than three or four hundred deaths" ?

Implicit in the statement that they did not speak of more than three or four hundred deaths is that it's "only" three or four hundred. Furthermore, to be ambiguous between three and four means that the difference (100 lives) is of little salience to the audience.

On "well-bred" I made a comparison to a dog prepping for a show, or something.

Did the poem as well. It was fine, but I thought that it was actually tricky in some ways, in that it was very easy to understand but harder to structure a focused, tight response to. There was lots to write about, but I almost had to repeat myself quite a lot, because everything throughout the poem seemed to be illustrating and underlining the same points.

Lots of contrast and juxtaposition throughout though; e.g. food and death, indulgence and sacrifice...And lots to do with class.

I assumed it was set in England, but that might have been presumptuous. I did vaguely wonder what you would have written, had you not known that 1940 was the second year of WW2...It's not necessarily crucial for the commentary though.

Haha, the only thing I think I read into a leeetle bit much was the fact that 'cocktails' was written 'cock-tails'. I thought of the animal - like a cock fluffing up its tail in pride - and how that related to "show of wit".

What did everyone else think?

Same here, repeating myself quite abit as well..but yeah you have to revolve around your central focus and theme and then everything all the devices and mood tone diction all revolve around that! I remember before our exams our teacher had told us not to write everything in parts but to link it all up together, so I guess there's nothing wrong with that !

Did the poem as well. It was fine, but I thought that it was actually tricky in some ways, in that it was very easy to understand but harder to structure a focused, tight response to. There was lots to write about, but I almost had to repeat myself quite a lot, because everything throughout the poem seemed to be illustrating and underlining the same points.

Lots of contrast and juxtaposition throughout though; e.g. food and death, indulgence and sacrifice...And lots to do with class.

I assumed it was set in England, but that might have been presumptuous. I did vaguely wonder what you would have written, had you not known that 1940 was the second year of WW2...It's not necessarily crucial for the commentary though.

Haha, the only thing I think I read into a leeetle bit much was the fact that 'cocktails' was written 'cock-tails'. I thought of the animal - like a cock fluffing up its tail in pride - and how that related to "show of wit".

What did everyone else think?

Three points I don't think I've seen mentioned:

I said that there was significance in the reporter being from Daventry: a familiar (to the guests), unassuming, "little-England" town. In contrast, Narvik is on the north Norwegian coast and the events unfolding there would feel distant and unthreatening to the guests, further adding to their apathy towards world events.

I also said that the cold meat on the table could be an allusion to the cold bodies on the battlefield, the link made by the repetition of "cold" for mutton and lead. This hints the poet is trying to convey that the guests should be concerned with the Second World War blah blah blah.

The structure and rhythm of the poem wildly contrasts between the first and third stanza of the poem: the first has a loose structure and rhythm (the lines beginning halfway across the page, etc.), easing the reader into a "false sense of security" and giving the poem a melodic tone, whilst the third has a more structured pattern, emphasising its grave tone.

And probably some other stuff. I loved the poem though, there's some stuff that it seems I missed out on, but I wrote 6 sides so I hope it's not deemed insufficient.

The structure and rhythm of the poem wildly contrasts between the first and third stanza of the poem: the first has a loose structure and rhythm (the lines beginning halfway across the page, etc.), easing the reader into a "false sense of security" and giving the poem a melodic tone, whilst the third has a more structured pattern, emphasising its grave tone.