[lp94]

I have a question:
The mark scheme says that to reach the top band in the synoptic question, your arguments need to be 'explicity comparative' and demonstrate that you understand links between the texts.
But in class, my teacher has never mentioned this and all of the essay plans he's given us just talk about each play in turn. How 'comparative' do you need to be? Should it be like an English Literature essay?

[ndx]

(Original post by lp94)
I have a question:
The mark scheme says that to reach the top band in the synoptic question, your arguments need to be 'explicity comparative' and demonstrate that you understand links between the texts.
But in class, my teacher has never mentioned this and all of the essay plans he's given us just talk about each play in turn. How 'comparative' do you need to be? Should it be like an English Literature essay?

I suppose it depends on the question. If, for example, it was a question about the role of the gods in the play, you could do a paragraph on how gods are directly involved (Medea, Hippolyuts) and then compare that with how they are presented in Sophocles (not directly involved but still very significant).

I prefer to do it play by play, I think it depends on the question but obviously they want us to compare Sophocles and Euripides.

[lp94]

(Original post by ndx)
I prefer to do it play by play, I think it depends on the question but obviously they want us to compare Sophocles and Euripides.

Can you still get into the top band by doing this though?
It's so difficult not to take each play in turn because there's usually so much to say on each one.
I think if you want a very high mark you need to make comparisons throughout your essay. It's the same for the Aeneid paper, although I'm not sure how you make comparisons in that because you're only writing about one text.

[ndx]

I don't know, I suppose if your argument is really tight and well argument with lots of quotes and evaluation then you can. Maybe if you do it play by play, you can continuously compare as you go though it? That's what I might do. At school, when ever I've done a practise essay for tragedy, I've been getting A's and I've been doing it play by play so I always assumed that was how you were supposed to answer it.

[Rhee_x]

On a lot of the mark schemes, the answers to the essay qs are separated by plays.
Also, for some questions, e.g. the endings of the plays, it would be hard to do it in any other way but play by play surely?

[ndx]

(Original post by Rhee_x)
On a lot of the mark schemes, the answers to the essay qs are separated by plays.
Also, for some questions, e.g. the endings of the plays, it would be hard to do it in any other way but play by play surely?

That's what I thought. Unless it was a question along the lines of "how satisfactory would the ending have been for the 5th century audience?" - you could do 1 paragraph on how it would have been (and link the plays together) and one on how it wouldn't have been (again linking all 4 plays). But that would be quite messy and I'd rather not do it that way...

I'm 99% sure Oedipus will be on Section A tomorrow. I wonder what extract they will use. I reckon his argument with either Creon or Tiresias.

[Rhee_x]

True, the question they asked was 'how satisfactory are the endings in achieving closure' and in the markscheme lists things like 'divine retribution' and 'catharsis' but I think doing it using those themes wouldn't work well and its much easier to compare using play by play and to get good amounts of detail.

I hope it will be too, the last time it was on the specification they use one of his first speeches where he promised to save the city. I think a scene with Creon or Tiresias would be good as you could comment on his anger at both of them and obsession with revealing the truth which can be compared with the rest of the scenes.

[ndx]

What would you say if the question was about the endings? I can't really think of that much to say except for talking about catharsis. Suppose you could say that for Sophocles' plays, the ending followed Aristotle's idea of a perfect tragedy - peripetia, anagnorisis and catastrophe.

Then for Medea, you could say they may have been unhappy she escaped with no punishment. I don't like that question much either haha.

[Rhee_x]

I think for the endings question there is a big divide between Euripides and Sophocles, so like you said Sophocles has clear anagnorisis' and there is a clear catharsis for the character. But In Euripidies this doesn't happen, so Medea is an unsatisfactory ending because Medea remains unpunished and there is no divine intervention, and for Hippolytus there is reconcilliation of Theseus and Hippolytus, but the lack of anagnorisis for Hippolytus again suggests an unsatisfactory ending.

I can't believe in 24 hours we will have sat this exam!

[ndx]

Thanks, that's what I thought. I hope that question doesn't come up though.

I know! I'm so nervous, I just hope AQA don't give us essay questions as bad as last year.

[Rhee_x]

Same, I'm thinking though that because last years were so bad, unless they ask us about myths (and they probably won't use either of last years questions again) they have to be nicer. *fingers crossed*

[sosotalk]

Do you need to do conclusions for 20 mark answers?

[cl_steele]

Anyone else bricking it for the art and architecture exam tomorrow morning or is it just me ?

[cl_steele]

(Original post by sosotalk)
Do you need to do conclusions for 20 mark answers?

i believe you do, either way its adviseable

[louisb2692]

guys im sure oedipus will come up but dont bank on it!

i will leave the exam hall if the chorus comes up! also can anyone give me a decent characterisation of jason. he sees so ambiguous to me!
HELP

[Rhee_x]

I hate Jason!
From what I gather, he isn't a very likeable character as he's sending not only his wife, but his children away from Corinth. He also doesn't seem to understand why Medea is so upset. The fact that he has betrayed her reiterated by the chorus who at the beginning sympathise with Medea. I don't really know much other than that :/ He isn't a particularly admirable character, you could also argue he is shallow in that he is marrying to ensure propserity.

[Cania]

(Original post by Rhee_x)
Starting to get nervous

I was wondering, if the essay in section B is on women, what is there to write about Jocasta?

(Original post by ndx)
I guess for Jocasta, you could comment that she appears to be a supporting wife to Oedipus, as she would have been expected to be. When he argues with Creon, she tries to calm him down and tell him not to be so rash.

You could also say about how she continues to try to protect him, when he's discovering the truth from the messenger, she begs him to stop for his sake but he refuses. Then, when she kills herself, she shows how important her honour (or time) was to her. She felt so disgraced that she couldn't live anymore. I think the audience would have respected her. That's all I can think of...

Not sure if it'll help anyone so late in the game, but I'd talk about how she appears to act both as a mother and as a wife to Oedipus. She steps well outside the boundaries of a wife when she tells him to stock bickering with Creon

I would also mention that he is not the only male that shows respect for her, the chorus are willing to answer her questions and do not think it is odd. The way she talks to them is very similar to the way Oedipus himself addresses them.

Oh, and of course she denies the importance of prophecy outright.. and there is that awkward moment when she hints at her knowledge of what has really happened (even if it is only subconsciously) when she partly excuses incest by claiming all men dream of bedding their mothers and it is not something to be ashamed of (I'm paraphrasing, of course!)

Also, she is incredibly private. As you said, she would rather kill herself than face public shame - when her brother and husband argue, she berates them for doing so in front of the citizens.

[ndx]

(Original post by louisb2692)
guys im sure oedipus will come up but dont bank on it!

i will leave the exam hall if the chorus comes up! also can anyone give me a decent characterisation of jason. he sees so ambiguous to me!
HELP

Well, he's extremely arrogant - "if she is like the rest of her sex, I think I shall persuade her too" - he basically thinks he's god's gift He's sexist and is basically a representation of a male in 5th century society. He also dismisses Medea's important in getting the golden fleece when, without her, he probably wouldn't have got it. He is also being punished because he broke his oath to Medea which Medea, the nurse and the chorus thought was an awful thing to do. So, if there was a question about oaths, he'd be really important to include. But despite all this, he was entitled to have more than one family so the Greek, male audience would not have disliked him the way a modern audience would have. They would have seen his actions as justified. At the end of the play, we see a different side to him. He's really heartbroken over his children and asks to hold them one last time (but surely he should known what Medea was capable of? Which makes me think he's quite ignorant too). Hope that helped

Yeah, I hate writing about the chorus. It's come up before though, so fingers crossed they'll try some new questions. I have a strong feeling mythology could come up.

[ndx]

(Original post by Cania)
Not sure if it'll help anyone so late in the game, but I'd talk about how she appears to act both as a mother and as a wife to Oedipus. She steps well outside the boundaries of a wife when she tells him to stock bickering with Creon

I would also mention that he is not the only male that shows respect for her, the chorus are willing to answer her questions and do not think it is odd. The way she talks to them is very similar to the way Oedipus himself addresses them.

Oh, and of course she denies the importance of prophecy outright.. and there is that awkward moment when she hints at her knowledge of what has really happened (even if it is only subconsciously) when she partly excuses incest by claiming all men dream of bedding their mothers and it is not something to be ashamed of (I'm paraphrasing, of course!)

Also, she is incredibly private. As you said, she would rather kill herself than face public shame - when her brother and husband argue, she berates them for doing so in front of the citizens.

Thanks! That was really helpful a question on women would be quite good tomorrow.

Learning all the quotes is such a pain I've been writing them out for ages and still can't remember all of them!

[Cania]

(Original post by ndx)
Thanks! That was really helpful a question on women would be quite good tomorrow.

Learning all the quotes is such a pain I've been writing them out for ages and still can't remember all of them!

You're told to write quotes? My tutor hasn't mentioned a need to use quotes...

Is some last minute cramming in order, do you think?