OCR English Literature Help

Hi, I'm really struggling with English Literature right now. My essay marks have gone up and down (I'm nearing the end of y12, about to have mocks). My highest is 26/30 and lowest is 15/30, this isn't linear at all they keep going back and forth and this is a subject I really want to get an A in.
If anyone has any resources for any aspect of this at all I would really appreciate it.
I'm really lacking in AO3 all around but particularly for John Webster and Bram Stoker/Angela Carter.
I'm also writing mock course-work essays for Ted Hughes' Birthday Letters and am struggling with AO2 as I haven't done it since year 11.

I know its a lot but if anyone has any possible resources to help me out or any essays they have written that have good marks I would appreciate it as we haven't seen many example essays and I think structuring my essays has become such a problem.
Thanks so much!!!

OCR English Lit is quite possibly the worst subject. Literally like 95% for an A* and 85% for an A. I completely get that your marks are fluctuating because mines do too, I got 16/30 in a mock but 24/30 in the other part of the same mock exam. It's really up to the examiner's discretion and whether they take a liking to your essay. The only way you can guarantee close to 30/30 is if you write an essay that's worth 40/30. I've just done half of my OCR English Lit A-level and I don't even know if I've got an A*, A or B - you just can't tell.

In terms of context for Webster, I think it's worth talking about Queen Mary (ruled between 1553-1558) and Queen Elizabeth (ruled between 1558-1603). Queen Mary married Phillip of Spain, who gained power over the state since he was technically a "ruler in marriage". Queen Elizabeth decided not to marry and her rule was considered the "Golden Age" as the "Virgin Mary", with many popular artists such as William Shakespeare proliferating during the time. The Duchess in DOM is interesting in that she marries like Queen Mary, yet still holds power within the marriage and over the state.

Something smart you could tie in here is the distinction between the body politic and the body natural. So these sound complication but they're really simple. The body politic is basically a ruler's obligations to their people - there was a belief that the health of a ruler determined the health of the entire kingdom so if the ruler was ill, then maybe the kingdom would be at a decline. The body natural is simply an individual's own wants/needs. By marrying Antonio (her steward), the Duchess has essentially prioritised her body natural over her body politic. By divorcing the body politic from the body natural through her marriage, the Duchess can be argued to have made a brave decision that entrenches her autonomy, but simultaneously can be argued to be a selfish decision that condemns the state.

The two other main pieces of context for Webster are those of religion and the court of James I. Religion: (takes place in heavily Catholic Italy) Webster was a Protestant that was prominently anti-Catholic. This may especially be the case during his time of writing The Duchess of Malfi (1614) since The Gunpowder Plot had occurred not too long ango (1605) so anti-Catholic sentiments were ripe. Webster's play perpetuates these anti-Catholic sentiments through the portrayal of a corrupt Cardinal who tried to bribe his way into becoming a pope, has Bosola murder somebody, keeps a strumpet, and murders said strumpet using a poisoned Bible. The poisoned Bible is an important symbol which may represent Webster's thoughts on the Catholic misinterpretation of the holy scripture. Since paranoia was prevalent during the early 17th century, many believed Catholics walked amongst them, so they acted as "wolves in sheep's clothing". This would be good to tie to Ferdinand's lycanthropy, since he is a Catholic that transforms into a wolf on the inside, like how Protestants believe Catholics are hairy on the inside. James I: (ruled between 1603-1625) Webster set the play in Amalfi, Italy, since he did not want to receive backlash from James I. His whole play is in fact commenting on the corrupt and sycophantic nature of James I's court since the very beginning of the play depicts Antonio singing praises of the French court which has been rid of its yes men. Whereas the court in Italy (a symbol for the court of James I) is a "common fountain" that has been poisoned to allow death and disease through the whole land spread. Bosola, the malcontent, stands in for Webster's representation of James I's court - he is a toadie who will do anything to get financial and political favours. By demonstrating the transformation of Bosola from a corrupt panderer to a moral bastion, and by reinstating the Duchess's heir as ruler, Webster identifies hope for the future of James I's corrupt court which is inundated with profligacy, overt homosexual familiars, handing out of titles such as peerages and knighthoods to fund extravagant spending, and a hotbed for plotting and intrigue.

Sorry if this is a lot to take in, I've just had my paper 1 like 3 days ago so a lot of the knowledge is still fresh in my head (so peeved that I only got to show off like 30% of what I've written). I have much more such as the tragic conventions of a revenge tragedy following on from Thomas Kyd's "Spanish Tragedy" and the perceived fluidity of a woman's body with the Duchess's pregnancy, but I don't want to overload you with content. Reply if you want more, or if you want similar information on the Bram Stoker/Angela Carter side (which is what I'm preparing for now since that's my upcoming paper 2).

I'll leave you with some critical interpretations you can use to supplement your essays: For discussion relevant to the Duchess, Christina Luckyj describing her as a "catalyst for social transformation" fits in most essays. For discussions relevant to Bosola, a Marxian interpretation which pits the bourgeoisie against the proletariat fits most essays.

Hi!
You are a blessing sent from God, thank you so much!! Also apologies for the late reply, I forgot to check my tsr.
This is soooooo helpful!! I will definitely be making resources out of this to help me remember it, because its so good!!
I will definitely be using the marxist interpretations too, as I also do sociology so find this simpler to use as AO5 - would you say its easier to use interpretations of a particular view than actual critics themselves? My recent Dracula/TBC essay was said to have too much AO5 and not enough AO3, and I am so worried for my mock that I wont be able to recall any AO5 itself.
I was planning to make shorter flashcards for some AO3 points and maybe a few critics, do you think this would be beneficial? How do you revise this subject?
If you could reply with anything else you are willing to give, please feel free to use this thread as somewhere to blurt all your knowledge for your exams as I will happily take all I can get!!
Wishing you lots of luck for all your exams and thank you again, this is so helpful to me

No problem, happy to help

With regards to AO5, you have to remember that it's only worth 12.5% of the essay, whereas AO3 is worth 50% of the essay so is effectively 4x as important. It's definitely easy to use critical theory like Marxism and feminism, but this might be perceived as being a bit lazy in exams as you haven't memorised an quotes from specific critics. I think it's best to use a blend of both.

I don't know how to tell you to revise this subject, since it's a question I ask myself everyday lol. Flashcards could work, that's what a lot of people do, so definitely try that out if it's your style.

I might reply with more context in the future once I've finished my second English A-level which is in another 6 days.