The Student Room Group

English Paper 1 (TZ2 - SL)

Scroll to see replies

how did you all find the prose? what kind of themes did you use? I tried answering 3 out of 4 guiding questions, but couldn't find many literary devices from it. That was a bad paper for me...
Original post by paperstars123
how did you all find the prose? what kind of themes did you use? I tried answering 3 out of 4 guiding questions, but couldn't find many literary devices from it. That was a bad paper for me...


I did the prose too! Personally I was thankful for the passage that was given- it was straight forward ad up-front enough to quickly understand. The theme I discussed was that of conflict being the basis of literature and, particular to this prose, it was the conflict between Wimsey's rational mind and the pure irrationality and deliriousness of seeing a ghost- and of a dead wife at that!

I talked a lot about the build up of the conflict; from the inciting force of seeing the ghost, to the rising action, to the climax of fainting, and finally to the falling action of being revived by some guy at on the platform with "tea"- tea being a very ordinary, everyday object which contrasts with the supernatural nature of seeing ghosts, at which point the passage ends quite appropriately as the conflict ends and there is nothing else to write about.. haha.

My structure was the following: intro, analysis of the first two paragraphs, characterization of Doris, characterization of Wimsey's wife, and finally the contrast between the supernatural and the everyday, the effect of the third person limited narration, the comic style of the diction, and finally a sweet conclusion about how, although Wimsey is a protagonist in the passage, he is amere tool for the author to express his purpose of showing what an encounter with a ghost may be like.

I wrote 11.5 sides.
Original post by Saymyname!
I did the prose too! Personally I was thankful for the passage that was given- it was straight forward ad up-front enough to quickly understand. The theme I discussed was that of conflict being the basis of literature and, particular to this prose, it was the conflict between Wimsey's rational mind and the pure irrationality and deliriousness of seeing a ghost- and of a dead wife at that!

I talked a lot about the build up of the conflict; from the inciting force of seeing the ghost, to the rising action, to the climax of fainting, and finally to the falling action of being revived by some guy at on the platform with "tea"- tea being a very ordinary, everyday object which contrasts with the supernatural nature of seeing ghosts, at which point the passage ends quite appropriately as the conflict ends and there is nothing else to write about.. haha.

My structure was the following: intro, analysis of the first two paragraphs, characterization of Doris, characterization of Wimsey's wife, and finally the contrast between the supernatural and the everyday, the effect of the third person limited narration, the comic style of the diction, and finally a sweet conclusion about how, although Wimsey is a protagonist in the passage, he is amere tool for the author to express his purpose of showing what an encounter with a ghost may be like.

I wrote 11.5 sides.


oh wow, thanks! Yours seems really good to me.

I mainly described the characterisation, and I made some comments on the comic effect and the introduction as suggested by the guiding questions, so at least it's reassuring that we took note on common points in the passage. However, I didn't analyse other aspects you mentioned (the contrast, narrative view, purpose etc), and I didn't really have a proper theme. I just stated it's about a guy's experience of meeting a ghost. :s-smilie: My essay was short too with only 4 sides, hopefully I can still get a decent mark without being completely off-topic.
Reply 23
Original post by paperstars123
oh wow, thanks! Yours seems really good to me.

I mainly described the characterisation, and I made some comments on the comic effect and the introduction as suggested by the guiding questions, so at least it's reassuring that we took note on common points in the passage. However, I didn't analyse other aspects you mentioned (the contrast, narrative view, purpose etc), and I didn't really have a proper theme. I just stated it's about a guy's experience of meeting a ghost. :s-smilie: My essay was short too with only 4 sides, hopefully I can still get a decent mark without being completely off-topic.



dont worry....u r not the only one who wrote only 4 sides.
i talked about use of metaphor, foreshadowing, narattive, repetition, imagery, metaphor and diction.
Original post by 526540828
dont worry....u r not the only one who wrote only 4 sides.
i talked about use of metaphor, foreshadowing, narattive, repetition, imagery, metaphor and diction.


Oh that's good to hear! That's the length I usually write actually :P What kind of theme did you come up with? I can't recall seeing any metaphor, hmm.
Reply 25
Hey, i did the prose as well, at first i felt like i did quite good but now that i had time to reflect on it i feel like it's not that great after all.
i mainly talked about the clash between the rational and irrational in the passage, the whole idea of the supernatural versus the natural and how the author used a comic tone in order to blend in the idea that ghosts might be elements of our everyday life thus making this irrational thought rational and an everyday-life type of thing.
i also talked about the confusion that the reader might feel, how in one hand it is implied that ghosts are indeed inhabitant of our world, but on the other hand it seems that the ghost of his wife is solely a product of his defective mind ( all the reference to his brain etc. could be seen as the author trying to give a rational explanation ) I might have said the words irrational/rational and supernatural/natural at least 20 times aha :tongue:

But that was an easy prose :smile: the guiding questions were really good. i dont think anyone will get it wrong, but then again with ib you never know and i feel like i just stated the obvious ... so well we shall see :smile: good luck everyone on paper 2 on wednesday :biggrin:
Reply 26
I read the prose and the poem..I normally go for prose coz its usually easier for me to get, but on this instance I couldn't freakin analyse anything in the prose, it was too direct and obvious, so I went for the poem where there was a lot of devices even though I didn't talk about some things that some people here have mentioned I thought it was sufficient enough anyway.. repetition, diction, mood, tone, theme, structure, symbolism, alliteration felt like it was enough!
I did the prose but now I'm worried I was a bit serious with it. I started by looking at the mixture of natural and supernatural in the intro and title, noting the ambiguity and irony of the title. I did a progressive essay cos I thought it was quite a progressive piece, but I spoke about how the writer uses the techniques like precise description and cold imagery to emphasise the fear felt by the central character at seeing the wife and instil the same fear in the reader by painting such a tangible image. Then the uncertainty in the character followed by the foreboding and climax. I didn't mention the comedy apart from in a small paragraph saying it made the text less overbearing and more accessible to the reader, cos for the main part I spoke about how the writer would establish a rational approach and then destroy it with supernatural evidence, so the comedy didn't really add to my argument. I finally mentioned viewpoint and how the omniescent narrator and past tense made us believe the narrator, who was trying to open our minds and persuade us to believe his idea of the existence of ghosts. I tracked the oscillations between dead and living and how they came together in the climax, but in both meetings the window acted as a barrier, suggesting how the writer may be commenting on their presence, but inability to transcend the metaphysical barrier between living and not.

I got in as many techniques as I could find, but I'm worried that my interpretation was way too focused upon life vs death and missed the point :confused: Feedback much appreciated :smile:
Reply 28
Sounds really good to me! Now i feel like i missed out on so many details. But i reckon you should get a really decent grade! Besides, the whole passage was focused on life versus death so it is logical that you put an emphasis on that.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending