The English Literature (LITB3 - 20/06/12) Thread

i need 106 UMS for an A*, COME ON AQA LITB3, I'M COUNTING ON YOU FOR DURHAM!

Reply 781

Alexander94

2

Original post by Groat

Nothing on villains!

I thought that question was quite mean. If you misinterpret base instincts you basically lose all the marks. :lolwut:

I thought it was a mean question when I got it... but I got an okay mark on it (only got it back today)

Reply 782

Original post by student1234567891

who created the creature in the first place? :colone:

Yes but like Prometheus and zeus, victor as overcome by his desire, and he initially wanted to do this for the better of mankind, he was naive to think that there would be a good outcome to his endeavors but it was never in the intention to cause the series of events that would unfold. The monster reaches a point where he willingly wants to carry out this string of murders “I wished to spread havoc and destruction around me, and then to have sat down and enjoyed the ruin” xx

Reply 783

Perseverance

21

Original post by brook180

Yes but like Prometheus and zeus, victor as overcome by his desire, and he initially wanted to do this for the better of mankind, he was naive to think that there would be a good outcome to his endeavors but it was never in the intention to cause the series of events that would unfold. The monster reaches a point where he willingly wants to carry out this string of murders “I wished to spread havoc and destruction around me, and then to have sat down and enjoyed the ruin” xx

^ What I would have said :smile:

Reply 784

Alexander94

2

Original post by lampshade1

Could you please PM me that question too? :colondollar:

Ill scan it now, hopefully you can read my handwriting!

Reply 785

Perseverance

21

Original post by S_123

BNC? Brasenose College? What a coincidence! It was a beautiful college :moon:

Where are you going now? :smile:

It was amazing, the second room I had was double the size of my own room + had a piano! With any luck, LSE now - although I did come very close to choosing Durham.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 786

Original post by brook180

Yes but like Prometheus and zeus, victor as overcome by his desire, and he initially wanted to do this for the better of mankind, he was naive to think that there would be a good outcome to his endeavors but it was never in the intention to cause the series of events that would unfold. The monster reaches a point where he willingly wants to carry out this string of murders “I wished to spread havoc and destruction around me, and then to have sat down and enjoyed the ruin” xx

but the poor creature has been reduced to this because of his rejection by humanity as evidenced by the De Lacey family. The creature is good, he is altruistic until the point whereby all his efforts are flung back in his face. Would that not inspire rage in you? At the end of the novel, there is a clear admission of guilt by the creature when he is distraught at the death of Victor and then proceeds to commit to killing himself. Victor had plenty of opportunities to speak up, William's death, Justine's death, Clerval's death and Elizabeth's death are all a product of Victor's creation and so he indirectly led to the death of those closest to him. None of them had to die if Victor had not rejected the creature.

Reply 787

SarahAshley29

Does anyone have ANY useful quotes or notes for Tess of the d'Urbervilles please?

Reply 788

Char Wari

Original post by Groat

The encounter with Harker is full of such quotes:

Ladies in their dress and manner
Voluptuous ruby lips
Devils of the pit
kisses for all
brilliant white teeth
Eating a half-smothered child
actually liked her lips like an animal
Harker was in a languorous ecstasy
Harker had a burning desire that they would kiss me

Then Lucy:

why can't they let a girl marry three men, or as many as want her
eyes unclean and full of hellfire
soft, voluptuous voice
lips crimson with fresh blood
unconscious struggle for life and death
held her arms out like an animal
Men seemed under a spell

Thanks a lot, really appreciate this and it will really help me if anything relevant to this appears in Section A or B in terms of female characters or general other stuff. This is my weakest of the three texts and I badly need a C grade :frown:

Reply 789

Original post by student1234567891

but the poor creature has been reduced to this because of his rejection by humanity as evidenced by the De Lacey family. The creature is good, he is altruistic until the point whereby all his efforts are flung back in his face. Would that not inspire rage in you? At the end of the novel, there is a clear admission of guilt by the creature when he is distraught at the death of Victor and then proceeds to commit to killing himself. Victor had plenty of opportunities to speak up, William's death, Justine's death, Clerval's death and Elizabeth's death are all a product of Victor's creation and so he indirectly led to the death of those closest to him. None of them had to die if Victor had not rejected the creature.

I wrote an essay stating your same points, that the monster still does have traces of humanity in him even after his murders, however immediately after he takes upon more rage.....Many get mistreat my society but instead they reverse their treatment and learn from it to come out as the better person. Look at Boo Radley for example, he is constantly gossiped about and degraded, however when it comes down to it, he is better than the society who prejudiced him....the monster too could have taken it upon himself to fight these urges .

Reply 790

Perseverance

21

Original post by student1234567891

but the poor creature has been reduced to this because of his rejection by humanity as evidenced by the De Lacey family. The creature is good, he is altruistic until the point whereby all his efforts are flung back in his face. Would that not inspire rage in you? At the end of the novel, there is a clear admission of guilt by the creature when he is distraught at the death of Victor and then proceeds to commit to killing himself. Victor had plenty of opportunities to speak up, William's death, Justine's death, Clerval's death and Elizabeth's death are all a product of Victor's creation and so he indirectly led to the death of those closest to him. None of them had to die if Victor had not rejected the creature.

Yes it would inspire rage, but not enough rage to murder and thus he has no justification. He may admit guilt but guilt does not exonerate him, and yes Victor could have spoken up, but the monster could also have not killed William, Justine (indirectly), Elizabeth or Clerval in the first place. It was the creature who acted not the monster, and this is why Victor is only guilty of recklessness for creating and leaving him.

Fair enough if Victor created a real 'monster' who had no thoughts or reasoning and merely killed others then I would blame him. However this very sense of altruism shared by the creature makes him even more guilty - he has a sense of morality.

Reply 791

bobadob

Is there a set list of possible themes on the syllabus that could come up, or could it be on anything? Obviously there will be ties to the Gothic or whatever the other strange one is (Pastoral? :tongue:

), particularly in section B.

I'm dreading getting some awful question, but am reassured by these generous UMS marks I'm seeing! :biggrin:

(I find this Frankenstein discussion you guys are having helpful and interesting. I'd join in if it weren't for dinner in a few minutes)

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 792

Original post by Perseverance

Yes it would inspire rage, but not enough rage to murder and thus he has no justification. He may admit guilt but guilt does not exonerate him, and yes Victor could have spoken up, but the monster could also have not killed William, Justine (indirectly), Elizabeth or Clerval in the first place. It was the creature who acted not the monster, and this is why Victor is only guilty of recklessness for creating and leaving him.

Fair enough if Victor created a real 'monster' who had no thoughts or reasoning and merely killed others then I would blame him. However this very sense of altruism shared by the creature makes him even more guilty - he has a sense of morality.

The creature, in comparison to normal human beings, does not have the same developed stance on right and wrong. Yes, he does know what is right from wrong, but he has not had the chance to learn what is the appropriate action to take when faced with rejection or cruelty. Murder is in no way justifiable, however, one must feel remorse for the creature in that he asks Victor to do one thing for him - that is creating a fellow companion - and Victor fails to do so. For the creature, murder worked first time round in the case of William as he saw the consequences it could have and so this was the only way he knew how to cause pain for Victor, his lack of a sense of morality has taught him violence speaks louder than words. If Victor had been gracious enough to teach the creature that murder was wrong, the creature would not have murdered anybody - he is not inherently evil.

Reply 793

LondonLT

3

any predictions for paradise lost, frankenstein, macbeth, bloody chamber for section A?

everyone pray for me

finished my most important exam today,
no sleep for me for litb3

Reply 794

lampshade1

6

Original post by Alexander94

Ill scan it now, hopefully you can read my handwriting!

Thanks, I'd really appreciate it! And I'm sure I will, mines terrible :')

Reply 795

tufc

14

“The violence in Macbeth is so excessive that it ceases to have any effect on the
audience.”
To what extent do you think the violence in the play is excessive?

How the hell would I answer that? What quotes would I use for that?

Reply 796

Original post by student1234567891

The creature, in comparison to normal human beings, does not have the same developed stance on right and wrong. Yes, he does know what is right from wrong, but he has not had the chance to learn what is the appropriate action to take when faced with rejection or cruelty. Murder is in no way justifiable, however, one must feel remorse for the creature in that he asks Victor to do one thing for him - that is creating a fellow companion - and Victor fails to do so. For the creature, murder worked first time round in the case of William as he saw the consequences it could have and so this was the only way he knew how to cause pain for Victor, his lack of a sense of morality has taught him violence speaks louder than words. If Victor had been gracious enough to teach the creature that murder was wrong, the creature would not have murdered anybody - he is not inherently evil.

Who knows if the monster will have been truly satisfied even with a female companion....at some point he will have probably wanted children.. if victor created a companion, the situation could spiral out of control. He is trying to right his wrongs, he has already lost everything all he has left is to do what is right by humanity now. We could end up with a whole community of "creatures" one worse than the other, as they wil never truly understand human ways.

If the moster had the capability to learn and read by himself, and understand from the encounters with the Delacey's, he needs to understand from a human point of view , to see such a giant monster is terrifying....i agree he is not inherently evil but Victor is not solely at fault. The monster takes pleasure in killing at a point, there are many alternatives he could have taken..Yes he lacked the nurture and love but not every ill fated child grows to be a murderer

Reply 797

Original post by tufc

“The violence in Macbeth is so excessive that it ceases to have any effect on the
audience.”
To what extent do you think the violence in the play is excessive?

How the hell would I answer that? What quotes would I use for that?

Repetition of bloody over 100 times....only form of entertainment for Elizabethans, "twenty trenched gashes" hyperbolic nature...

Mostly argue against excessive most of the violence takes place offstage to add the sense of mystery.

also:
ct 1 only has three main scenes: the dark, vile Heath, Duncan's Camp, and Macbeth's Castle. All three scenes expose different types of violence. Duncan's Camp serves as a reminder that man is vulnerable, with the attacks of the disloyal Thane of Cawdor, and the Norwegian King on Duncan's army. Lastly we have Macbeth's Castle, where the 'air is sweet'. A complete contradiction, as appearances were deceptive. Duncan believed Macbeth would be loyal to him no matter what; but the feast was just a decoy to kill Duncan. However, violence can be seen as effective, bringing in many factors, such as that of the supernatural elements. Shakespeare exposes us to a dark setting, an apt imagery for the evil occurrences that shall come.

Reply 798