WJEC English Literature A2 Exam 20th June 2012
Scroll to see replies
This is an essay i did a few months ago which got full marks if anyone would find it helpful
Great drama tends to pose more questions than it answers, which are not necessarily answered at the end of the play. Discuss.
One view of great drama would be that it follows a simple cycle of proposing questions toward the start of the play, and then having characters undergo a process of resolution throughout the play, ultimately reaching a denouement where these questions are answered. However, the Tempest is in actuality a complex piece, with a miasma of unresolved and often apparently conflicting questions, and arguably this complexity and lack of total narrative satisfaction for the audience is what makes it such a great play. Likewise, Dr. Faustus is a complex piece with many contradicting strands, and the audience is presented with no clear moral resolution here either, and in both of these plays some of their power and longevity resides in the unanswered questions they pose.
The use by Shakespeare of two of the three traditional Aristotelian unities in structuring The Tempest could be seen as suggesting the play will follow a simple structure with a single main story arc that is easily reconciled at the end of the play. The dramatis personae concludes by saying “the scene: an uninhabited island”, and thus Shakespeare makes it clear from the off that there is unity of space by iterating the sole setting at the very start of his play, whilst he is at pains to establish unity of time via Prospero’s lengthy explanations of the history of the principle characters. Indeed, the length of these didactic passages is such that Shakespeare has Prospero appeal to the listening Miranda, and thus also to the audience, to “hear a little further”, the use of a direct appeal serving to retain a potentially restive audience’s attention as he explains the convoluted story of how the characters came to converge upon the island in a way that is only necessary as Shakespeare is so eager to explain, rather than show this history in order to preserve the unity of time. Critics such as Paul Cantor argue that “action seems to evaporate into inaction” in the sub-plots of the play, with, for example, Trinculo and Stephano’s escapades amounting to little more than a platform for humour and clowning; the heavy use of sticymathia as in “I am standing water/why, I’ll teach you how to flow” points to this. However, there is no such unity of story and thus no real unity of questions being answered. The main story arc is resolved in the key final scenes where Prospero eventually “drown
his books” and “break his staff”, the use of similar phrasing for both of these examples of acquiescence emphasising to the audience his resignation of power, and thus one could argue that the play effectively resolves the key issue at stake and thus provides traditional, Aristotelian narrative completion. However, other, secondary issues are not so clearly resolved, and an alternative reading of the play would be that its power is in the rich complexity of its narrative tapestry. Several story arcs and thematic disputes are instigated, some with only tangential links to the main story, and not all of these result in a simple answer.
The same interpretations are possible of Dr. Faustus. On the one hand, the main story arc is grimly and undeniably resolved, and one could argue that the structure does contain some echoes of an Aristotelian structure, with the “four and twenty years” equating to twenty-four hours in reflecting the brevity of Faustus’ earthly “pomp and majesty” (with hendiadys used to indicate how majestic Faustus believes himself to be) when compared to the eternity contemporary theology said he would spend in hell. This reading would suggest that a single, answered question is what provides the play with its narrative thrust. However, David Bevington describes Faustus as a “non-Aristotelian blend” with a “disregard for all the ‘unities’.” The globe-hopping narrative (from “Wittenburg” to “Rome”) spanning those “four and twenty years” makes it fairly clear that there is no traditional structure here. As in the Tempest, whilst the story is resolved, several questions are proposed without clear answers. In the Tempest, debates over nature versus nurture, colonialism and the nature of humanity occur, whereas in Faustus, the audience’s reaction to Faustus and thus the nature of morality provides a key area where no answers are clearly reached, and arguably it is in these thematic areas that the searching questions of great drama are found.
An essential critical reading of texts when looking at unresolved issues is the deconstructionalist reading suggested by Roland Barthes in 1970. Under Barthe’s analysis, the Tempest and Faustus can both be classified as “scriptible” plays without a “closed” meaning consisting of resolved questions, but rather as plays which invite a series of the oppositional interpretations so critical to deconstructionalist analysis. Austin Harris’ assessment of the play as offering “nearly unlimited interpretations” exemplifies the view of many critics that the Tempest is in its deepest nature ambiguous. This is clearly illustrated in the case of the famous debate proposed in the Tempest as to whether “nature” or “nurture” is more important in the formation of character, personality and self. The phrasing of this question is a cliché to 21st century readers used to this debate which has been rehashed for centuries, but it is worth noting that at the time describing Caliban as a creature “on whose nature nurture” can have no impact is an ingenious piece of juxtaposition, the evident similarity between the two words an ingenious way of highlighting the complexity of the debate and the difficulty of extricating hereditary from environmental influences. In this instance, Caliban’s nature is depicted as overriding his upbringing, but in other places Shakespeare suggests the opposite, as with Miranda’s statement that “good wombs have borne bad sons”, with the simple monosyllabic framing of this sentiment providing emphasis to its moral point. There is no clear resolution of this point; one the one hand, Shakespeare uses the repetition of “a devil, a born devil” to iterate and reiterate that Caliban has been monstrous since birth, but on the other hand it is only the upbringing and nurturing of Prospero, who taught him human speech, that enables him to produce arguably the most beautiful piece of poetry in the play in his description of the island as full of “sounds and sweet airs”, using sibilance to create a poetic description in tune with the gentle sounds he describes in a speech described as possessing “graceful iambic pentameters” which are a “small triumph of civility” by Palfrey. The production of such a beautiful speech by a bestial character indicates that education is possible, even for this “thing of darkness”, in contrast to the claims of Prospero to the contrary. There are no easy answers here; the audience is left to resolve the issue for themselves, and thus the power of the play can be seen to reside in the unanswered questions it plants in the minds of the audience.
Likewise, a deconstructionalist reading of Faustus reveals clear oppositionalities within the texts. For example, the audience is presented with conflicting views on Faustus and whether or not they should sympathise with him. One the one hand, church dogma of the day decreed that as a man who has denounced god he deserves endless punishment in a veridical hell, and yet in the final scene we arguably see a man who is distraught and repentant and thus sympathise with. This is mirrored in the trochaic substitutions disrupting the iambic pentameter of his final speech, with such changes of stress from the regular iambs as “ugly” at the start of his penultimate speech suggesting that his heart is skipping beats as his fear and desire for repentance grows. The audience is therefore left unsure as to whether we should be sympathising with or condemning Faustus, and this key issue is left unresolved up to the point where the stage directions dictate Faustus “exeunt” with the devils who have come to claim him. Throughout both Faustus and the Tempest, we are presented with ambiguous characters and themes, and the audience is left to decide their stance on these issues; these great pieces of drama therefore pose many questions which they do not answer, but this is by no means to their detriment, and indeed provokes a more involved response from the audience.
I therefore feel that on a narrative level, it is important that questions posed are resolved; the audience must see Ferdinand and Miranda’s love realised, for example, or learn of Faustus’ fate, to be truly satisfied once they leave the theatre. However, on a thematic level, ambiguity is crucial to the success of any text. The role of the playwright is not to tell through didactic speeches which leave no room for the audience to make a judgement of their own, but rather to present the complex issues of the human existence in a distilled form which the audience can then contemplate and come to their own decisions on. I therefore feel great drama, like the work of Marlowe or Shakespeare, relies on ambiguity and unanswered questions to challenge the audience and form a truly immersive piece of art.
One view of great drama would be that it follows a simple cycle of proposing questions toward the start of the play, and then having characters undergo a process of resolution throughout the play, ultimately reaching a denouement where these questions are answered. However, the Tempest is in actuality a complex piece, with a miasma of unresolved and often apparently conflicting questions, and arguably this complexity and lack of total narrative satisfaction for the audience is what makes it such a great play. Likewise, Dr. Faustus is a complex piece with many contradicting strands, and the audience is presented with no clear moral resolution here either, and in both of these plays some of their power and longevity resides in the unanswered questions they pose.
The use by Shakespeare of two of the three traditional Aristotelian unities in structuring The Tempest could be seen as suggesting the play will follow a simple structure with a single main story arc that is easily reconciled at the end of the play. The dramatis personae concludes by saying “the scene: an uninhabited island”, and thus Shakespeare makes it clear from the off that there is unity of space by iterating the sole setting at the very start of his play, whilst he is at pains to establish unity of time via Prospero’s lengthy explanations of the history of the principle characters. Indeed, the length of these didactic passages is such that Shakespeare has Prospero appeal to the listening Miranda, and thus also to the audience, to “hear a little further”, the use of a direct appeal serving to retain a potentially restive audience’s attention as he explains the convoluted story of how the characters came to converge upon the island in a way that is only necessary as Shakespeare is so eager to explain, rather than show this history in order to preserve the unity of time. Critics such as Paul Cantor argue that “action seems to evaporate into inaction” in the sub-plots of the play, with, for example, Trinculo and Stephano’s escapades amounting to little more than a platform for humour and clowning; the heavy use of sticymathia as in “I am standing water/why, I’ll teach you how to flow” points to this. However, there is no such unity of story and thus no real unity of questions being answered. The main story arc is resolved in the key final scenes where Prospero eventually “drown
his books” and “break his staff”, the use of similar phrasing for both of these examples of acquiescence emphasising to the audience his resignation of power, and thus one could argue that the play effectively resolves the key issue at stake and thus provides traditional, Aristotelian narrative completion. However, other, secondary issues are not so clearly resolved, and an alternative reading of the play would be that its power is in the rich complexity of its narrative tapestry. Several story arcs and thematic disputes are instigated, some with only tangential links to the main story, and not all of these result in a simple answer.The same interpretations are possible of Dr. Faustus. On the one hand, the main story arc is grimly and undeniably resolved, and one could argue that the structure does contain some echoes of an Aristotelian structure, with the “four and twenty years” equating to twenty-four hours in reflecting the brevity of Faustus’ earthly “pomp and majesty” (with hendiadys used to indicate how majestic Faustus believes himself to be) when compared to the eternity contemporary theology said he would spend in hell. This reading would suggest that a single, answered question is what provides the play with its narrative thrust. However, David Bevington describes Faustus as a “non-Aristotelian blend” with a “disregard for all the ‘unities’.” The globe-hopping narrative (from “Wittenburg” to “Rome”) spanning those “four and twenty years” makes it fairly clear that there is no traditional structure here. As in the Tempest, whilst the story is resolved, several questions are proposed without clear answers. In the Tempest, debates over nature versus nurture, colonialism and the nature of humanity occur, whereas in Faustus, the audience’s reaction to Faustus and thus the nature of morality provides a key area where no answers are clearly reached, and arguably it is in these thematic areas that the searching questions of great drama are found.
An essential critical reading of texts when looking at unresolved issues is the deconstructionalist reading suggested by Roland Barthes in 1970. Under Barthe’s analysis, the Tempest and Faustus can both be classified as “scriptible” plays without a “closed” meaning consisting of resolved questions, but rather as plays which invite a series of the oppositional interpretations so critical to deconstructionalist analysis. Austin Harris’ assessment of the play as offering “nearly unlimited interpretations” exemplifies the view of many critics that the Tempest is in its deepest nature ambiguous. This is clearly illustrated in the case of the famous debate proposed in the Tempest as to whether “nature” or “nurture” is more important in the formation of character, personality and self. The phrasing of this question is a cliché to 21st century readers used to this debate which has been rehashed for centuries, but it is worth noting that at the time describing Caliban as a creature “on whose nature nurture” can have no impact is an ingenious piece of juxtaposition, the evident similarity between the two words an ingenious way of highlighting the complexity of the debate and the difficulty of extricating hereditary from environmental influences. In this instance, Caliban’s nature is depicted as overriding his upbringing, but in other places Shakespeare suggests the opposite, as with Miranda’s statement that “good wombs have borne bad sons”, with the simple monosyllabic framing of this sentiment providing emphasis to its moral point. There is no clear resolution of this point; one the one hand, Shakespeare uses the repetition of “a devil, a born devil” to iterate and reiterate that Caliban has been monstrous since birth, but on the other hand it is only the upbringing and nurturing of Prospero, who taught him human speech, that enables him to produce arguably the most beautiful piece of poetry in the play in his description of the island as full of “sounds and sweet airs”, using sibilance to create a poetic description in tune with the gentle sounds he describes in a speech described as possessing “graceful iambic pentameters” which are a “small triumph of civility” by Palfrey. The production of such a beautiful speech by a bestial character indicates that education is possible, even for this “thing of darkness”, in contrast to the claims of Prospero to the contrary. There are no easy answers here; the audience is left to resolve the issue for themselves, and thus the power of the play can be seen to reside in the unanswered questions it plants in the minds of the audience.
Likewise, a deconstructionalist reading of Faustus reveals clear oppositionalities within the texts. For example, the audience is presented with conflicting views on Faustus and whether or not they should sympathise with him. One the one hand, church dogma of the day decreed that as a man who has denounced god he deserves endless punishment in a veridical hell, and yet in the final scene we arguably see a man who is distraught and repentant and thus sympathise with. This is mirrored in the trochaic substitutions disrupting the iambic pentameter of his final speech, with such changes of stress from the regular iambs as “ugly” at the start of his penultimate speech suggesting that his heart is skipping beats as his fear and desire for repentance grows. The audience is therefore left unsure as to whether we should be sympathising with or condemning Faustus, and this key issue is left unresolved up to the point where the stage directions dictate Faustus “exeunt” with the devils who have come to claim him. Throughout both Faustus and the Tempest, we are presented with ambiguous characters and themes, and the audience is left to decide their stance on these issues; these great pieces of drama therefore pose many questions which they do not answer, but this is by no means to their detriment, and indeed provokes a more involved response from the audience.
I therefore feel that on a narrative level, it is important that questions posed are resolved; the audience must see Ferdinand and Miranda’s love realised, for example, or learn of Faustus’ fate, to be truly satisfied once they leave the theatre. However, on a thematic level, ambiguity is crucial to the success of any text. The role of the playwright is not to tell through didactic speeches which leave no room for the audience to make a judgement of their own, but rather to present the complex issues of the human existence in a distilled form which the audience can then contemplate and come to their own decisions on. I therefore feel great drama, like the work of Marlowe or Shakespeare, relies on ambiguity and unanswered questions to challenge the audience and form a truly immersive piece of art.
Original post by christacrisp
Hi,
this is more of a revision tip, so not sure if it will help, but I've been printing off copies of the 'poem of the week' http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/series/poemoftheweek and giving myself 10 minutes to annotate them. Just good practice I think.
In terms of answering the question, I tend to find 3 points related to the question, so lets say the question was about love, I would maybe isolate 3 types of love, for example relationship type love-positive and negative aspects of (so My Pretty Rose Tree), love between child and parent (infant joy) and universal love ( The Clod and the Pebble), then I would look at the unseen poem and see if there are 3 points that I can use to either agree with the point from Blake's essay, or that contrast it. If the ideas aren't similar, then you can always use techniques, such as use of metaphor etc!
this is more of a revision tip, so not sure if it will help, but I've been printing off copies of the 'poem of the week' http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/series/poemoftheweek and giving myself 10 minutes to annotate them. Just good practice I think.
In terms of answering the question, I tend to find 3 points related to the question, so lets say the question was about love, I would maybe isolate 3 types of love, for example relationship type love-positive and negative aspects of (so My Pretty Rose Tree), love between child and parent (infant joy) and universal love ( The Clod and the Pebble), then I would look at the unseen poem and see if there are 3 points that I can use to either agree with the point from Blake's essay, or that contrast it. If the ideas aren't similar, then you can always use techniques, such as use of metaphor etc!
Thanks so so much for this, it's soooo helpful!!
Hi, I'm doing Chaucer Wife of Bath, The Tempest and Doctor Faustus.
I like the WOB and have plenty to write however I'm struggling with the other two. Looking through past papers is scaring me for the real thing because I'm worried I'll have nothing to write!
Our teacher hasn't said anything about including critics? are we meant to?
Any advice or tips would be much appreciated as I'm struggling!
Thanks x
I like the WOB and have plenty to write however I'm struggling with the other two. Looking through past papers is scaring me for the real thing because I'm worried I'll have nothing to write!
Our teacher hasn't said anything about including critics? are we meant to?
Any advice or tips would be much appreciated as I'm struggling!
Thanks x
Original post by choco12323
Thanks so so much for this, it's soooo helpful!!
No problem! Glad it was helpful!!
Original post by shannanlorraine
Hi, I'm doing Chaucer Wife of Bath, The Tempest and Doctor Faustus.
I like the WOB and have plenty to write however I'm struggling with the other two. Looking through past papers is scaring me for the real thing because I'm worried I'll have nothing to write!
Our teacher hasn't said anything about including critics? are we meant to?
Any advice or tips would be much appreciated as I'm struggling!
Thanks x
I like the WOB and have plenty to write however I'm struggling with the other two. Looking through past papers is scaring me for the real thing because I'm worried I'll have nothing to write!
Our teacher hasn't said anything about including critics? are we meant to?
Any advice or tips would be much appreciated as I'm struggling!
Thanks x
If it helps, I will give you an example of what I do to revise the two plays and you can see if you find it helpful, obviously everyone learns in different ways but it works for me!
The Supernatural/Magic
Good magic/Bad Magic
Context: fine line between magic and science
- ‘John Dee (13 July 1527–1608 or 1609) was an English mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occultist, navigator, imperialist [4] and consultant to Queen Elizabeth I. He devoted much of his life to the study of alchemy, divination and Hermetic philosophy.’ Also considered a magician.
- ‘James I, unsympathetic to anything related to the supernatural, provided no help. Dee spent his final years in poverty at Mortlake’
- ‘Why did James become interested in the Christian witch theory – that witches worked in groups and had made a pact with the devil? It almost certainly occurred in 1589 when he visited Denmark to meet his future wife. It was in Denmark that James met a number of intellectuals and philosophers including the astronomer Tycho Brahe. Witches were actively hunted out in Denmark where the theory of a demonic pact had been widely accepted. The king’s journey back to Scotland proved to be a very rough and stormy one and one ship was lost. Witches were blamed - working in both Scotland and Denmark. When the Danish court made a reciprocal visit to Scotland in 1590, the topic of witchcraft and sorcery may well have been a topic of conversation.’
- James wrote ‘Daemonologie’
- Perhaps Prospero feels he must burn his books because of the threat of the taboo of his magic (every third thought shall be my grave), and it means that Shakespeare himself is not connoted with magic good or bad. Shows that magic has been used for a desperate situation but has no place in the court world (and therefore this subject is no threat to King James, who was increasingly paranoid about suffering a violent death, esp at the hands of witches). By making Prospero abandon his books, it shows that Shakespeare does not necessarily promote the use of magic. ‘Shakespeare is also careful to make the distinction that Prospero is a rational, and not an occultist, magician. He does this by providing a contrast to him in Sycorax. Sycorax is said to have worshipped the devil and been full of "earthy and abhored commands". She was unable to control Ariel, who was "too delicate" for such dark tasks. Prospero's rational goodness enables him to control Ariel where Sycorax can only trap him in a tree. Sycorax's magic is frequently described as destructive and terrible, where Prospero's is said to be wondrous and beautiful. Prospero seeks to set things right in his world through his magic, and once that is done, he renounces it, setting Ariel free.’
- It was increasingly possible to perform stage ‘tricks’ in Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre, which might have meant that magic seemed more realistic to an audience, and it is perhaps for this reason that we must be reminded that Prospero is not a true magician
( Magic is what we don’t understand, or cant explain at the time)
‘printless foot’- increasing the supersticious nature of magic, since it is all the more unknown, mysterious, something which is not tangible and thusly a greater source of fear.
-Magic is a key source of power, it is important because it creates a divide between Prospero’s power and the courts power.
- characters are central to the display of power, Ariel, Prospero
- Prospero’s use of magic is partly through his own merit and partly through Ariel’s power, we see some displays of his magic yet the magic that he actually holds is a little ambiguous. He uses it to serve his own purpose (namely that of revenge) and to control those around him- Miranda, Ariel, Caliban and those who come to the island. His magic is closely associated to knowledge, and is perhaps based on him knowledge, although this remains largely ambiguous. He sees magic as something taboo, we know this because he feels he must ‘burn his books’.
- Magic is for Prospero a great source of pride, and he sees it as his own even though this may not be strictly true
Ariel and magic
- Ariel’s magic is mysterious since we the other characters are unaware of his presence, making the magic more frightening. Places an emphasis on insanity, and this is perhaps Ariel’ true power, because she can control and torment the lives of others ‘I shall make you mad’
- Ariel is the true source of magic. The magic he uses is playful and elegant yet powerful and is all for the service of Prospero
Representation of Magic
- A large part of the way in which magic is represented is through the island. This gives magic a positive slant since the island is largely described as being a paradise, or a fertile place. In this sense magic almost becomes patriarchal, a protecting, perhaps even divine thing.
- Prospero’s books are representative of magic and knowledge. The fact that magic can be learnt from books would suggest that it is freely available to all, and not just to Prospero. This makes magic less precious, since its source is not the power of an individual, only the ability to read. This can be compared to Doctor Faustus also. Reference could be made to John Dee who had an extensive library.
- Prospero’s clock is also a representation of magic. This serves two purposes. Firstly because it allows us to separate the magician and the father. See P’s abjuration of magic or similar reasons. Also it shows that the magic is largely ‘baseless’ since this is a material good, which can be easily removed. Link to Stephano and Trinculo stealing the ‘luggage’ since they believe this will give them power.
- Ceres, Juno and the other one also show that magic is more about show then actual power. Connotes to the line ‘I flamed amazement’, showing that magic, is, as it is in stages terms also, an illusion, that amazes but amounts to little
Some Quotes
‘I have with such provision in mine art’- [Prospero] sees his own magic as controlled, deliberate, and most importantly his. ‘Art’ suggests something developed, practiced and separate from himself as a being
‘Earthy and abhorred commands’-Prospero on Sycorax’s magic. Prospero is represented in part by Ariel ( for other readings, in play both wore same suit), whereas Sycorax is more earthy, and therefore has connotations with things low down in world hierarchy (Elizabethan high structure), namely rocks being at the bottom, whereas Prospero is represented by Ariel, and the magic is therefore more divine, something which God would condone, not the devil. Shows clear definition between good and bad magic, which would have made him more appealing to Elizabethan audience
‘by sorcery he got this isle-Caliban on Prospero. The use of the word sorcery is important because it suggests something very negative, and more akin to his mothers magic then to Prospero’s.
‘sounds and sweet airs that hurt not’ Caliban on the island. Use of sibilance creates a soothing tone, once more reinforcing this idea that the magic of the island is a pastoral figure, that is gentle. This gives another positive view of magic.
‘Now I will believe there are Unicorns’- Sebastien towards the end of seeing the apparition of the table of food. Hints of sarcasm. Shows magic is not universally believed. Shows Sebastien’s ignorance and lack of faith but also suggests that magic is in some way trivial
‘baseless fabric of our vision’- magic is illusion, not real power, reminds audience that it is nothing to be frightened of
‘midnight mushrooms’ - Prospero on the spirits of the island, describes magic as mystical and amazing, yet in some ways earthy. Paternal nature of the isle shown once more since magic provides
Some of this is quoted from wikipedia and other sites etc
oh my gosh, thank you so much! super helpful x
Does anyone have a hunch about what you reckon's going to come up for King Lear or Blake? Im soooo so scared xxxx
Original post by ConstantlyStressed
Is anyone doing Hamlet and Chaucer's Wife of Bath?
I am soooo struggling with both
I am soooo struggling with both
Me too, me too!
How many quotes have you learned for each?Original post by christacrisp
Hi,
this is more of a revision tip, so not sure if it will help, but I've been printing off copies of the 'poem of the week' http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/series/poemoftheweek and giving myself 10 minutes to annotate them. Just good practice I think.
In terms of answering the question, I tend to find 3 points related to the question, so lets say the question was about love, I would maybe isolate 3 types of love, for example relationship type love-positive and negative aspects of (so My Pretty Rose Tree), love between child and parent (infant joy) and universal love ( The Clod and the Pebble), then I would look at the unseen poem and see if there are 3 points that I can use to either agree with the point from Blake's essay, or that contrast it. If the ideas aren't similar, then you can always use techniques, such as use of metaphor etc! If it's reasurring, I've been getting between b's and a*'s in essays so far, so hopefully I'm not far off with my technique for the essay,
hope this helps,
good luck
this is more of a revision tip, so not sure if it will help, but I've been printing off copies of the 'poem of the week' http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/series/poemoftheweek and giving myself 10 minutes to annotate them. Just good practice I think.
In terms of answering the question, I tend to find 3 points related to the question, so lets say the question was about love, I would maybe isolate 3 types of love, for example relationship type love-positive and negative aspects of (so My Pretty Rose Tree), love between child and parent (infant joy) and universal love ( The Clod and the Pebble), then I would look at the unseen poem and see if there are 3 points that I can use to either agree with the point from Blake's essay, or that contrast it. If the ideas aren't similar, then you can always use techniques, such as use of metaphor etc! If it's reasurring, I've been getting between b's and a*'s in essays so far, so hopefully I'm not far off with my technique for the essay,
hope this helps,
good luck
thanks for your advice, but do you think wil get a simmilar unseen poem as the from the link you gave?
is it still useful to annotate a poem that wont come in the exam :s
+1
Original post by johyy
is anyone doing hamlet??
I'm doing Hamlet and The Revengers Tragedy! Arghhhhh feels like there's soooooo much to cover in soooo little time! But I'd really recommend getting these York Notes, they're super helpful! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hamlet-York-Notes-Advanced/dp/058278428X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339597553&sr=8-1
But I literally know nothing on the Revengers and I haven't re-read either.. = /
Original post by choco12323
I'm doing Hamlet and The Revengers Tragedy! Arghhhhh feels like there's soooooo much to cover in soooo little time! But I'd really recommend getting these York Notes, they're super helpful! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hamlet-York-Notes-Advanced/dp/058278428X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339597553&sr=8-1
But I literally know nothing on the Revengers and I haven't re-read either.. = /
But I literally know nothing on the Revengers and I haven't re-read either.. = /
Im struggling on quotes for TRT myself. I dont know which quotes to pick to memorise :/
Original post by shaziaxo
Me too, me too! How many quotes have you learned for each?
How many quotes have you learned for each?Oh, thank God! I've learned about 10-15 quotes for each, but I'm still struggling to fit them in to essays effectively. What about you?
I hate both texts, but the one I hate more is Hamlet and TRT. Just plain horrible!
Original post by choco12323
I'm doing Hamlet and The Revengers Tragedy! Arghhhhh feels like there's soooooo much to cover in soooo little time! But I'd really recommend getting these York Notes, they're super helpful! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hamlet-York-Notes-Advanced/dp/058278428X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339597553&sr=8-1
But I literally know nothing on the Revengers and I haven't re-read either.. = /
But I literally know nothing on the Revengers and I haven't re-read either.. = /
My teacher said we don't need to learn quotes for TRT (but obviously its good to know a couple). This girl in my college wrote an amazing essay on Hamlet and TRT and got 40/40 with only ONE TRT quote!!
Original post by ConstantlyStressed
Oh, thank God! I've learned about 10-15 quotes for each, but I'm still struggling to fit them in to essays effectively. What about you?
I hate both texts, but the one I hate more is Hamlet and TRT. Just plain horrible!
I hate both texts, but the one I hate more is Hamlet and TRT. Just plain horrible!
Snap and snap again! And I know, hardly anybody on here is doing Hamlet or the WOB! All my quotes are interchangeable (but knowing my luck, this will backfire on me).
I am DREADING Hamlet and TRT, but not so much WOB because you can write about almost anything (thank god!).
I'm really worried that my exam won't match my coursework grade :/
Original post by johyy
thanks for your advice, but do you think wil get a simmilar unseen poem as the from the link you gave?
is it still useful to annotate a poem that wont come in the exam :s
+1
is it still useful to annotate a poem that wont come in the exam :s
+1
no problem! there's no way of knowing to be honest, theres always a chance, but its unlikely. I think it is, because the quicker and easier you can draw information from a poem the better, because that's exactly what we need to do in the exam.
I think it's always useful to practice technique whatever you do, especially for this, where we need to quickly spot poetic techniques etcetc
Original post by shannanlorraine
oh my gosh, thank you so much! super helpful x
no problem! good luck! x
Original post by shaziaxo
Snap and snap again! And I know, hardly anybody on here is doing Hamlet or the WOB! All my quotes are interchangeable (but knowing my luck, this will backfire on me).
I am DREADING Hamlet and TRT, but not so much WOB because you can write about almost anything (thank god!).
I'm really worried that my exam won't match my coursework grade :/
I am DREADING Hamlet and TRT, but not so much WOB because you can write about almost anything (thank god!).
I'm really worried that my exam won't match my coursework grade :/
I don't even need English to get in to uni, but I'd love a B..I don't see that happening
What did you get for your coursework?
Original post by ConstantlyStressed
I don't even need English to get in to uni, but I'd love a B..I don't see that happening
What did you get for your coursework?
What did you get for your coursework?
Stay positive, you never know! I've seen so many people do better in English than what they thought. You're lucky you don't need it for uni, I'm jealous lol!
I got an A in my coursework, but my exam essays have been low Bs and Cs for Hamlet. I need an A to get to uni, so I'm praying for a miracle lol! What about you?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2023
- WJEC A-level English Literature Unit 4 (1720U40-1) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- WJEC A-level English Literature Unit 3 (1720U30-1) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- WJEC A Level Business A2 Unit 4 (1510U40-1) - 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- 2023 WJEC Ecomnomics A Level Grade Boundaries
- help 😭
- help 😭
- WJEC GCSE English Language 3rd June 2014 Official Thread
- GCE vs AS vs A-Levels
- GCSE 2023 Grade Boundaries (All Exam Boards)
- I'm terrified for English Literature
- GCSE Biology Study Group 2022-2023
- How to analyse better?
- A-level English Study Group
- A-level English Literature Study Group 2022-2023
- Discrimination against English A level students 2023
- GCSE
Latest
Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (1ET0 01) - 17th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
AQA A-Level English Literature B Paper 2 (7716/2) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level English Literature Paper 2 (H472/02) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 (8700/1) - 7th November 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Please mark my gcse english language paper 2 question 5!!!Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 1 (7702/1) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 2 (7702/2) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 9 hours ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (1ET0 01) - 17th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
AQA A-Level English Literature B Paper 2 (7716/2) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level English Literature Paper 2 (H472/02) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 (8700/1) - 7th November 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Please mark my gcse english language paper 2 question 5!!!Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 1 (7702/1) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 2 (7702/2) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
