Module B - Critical Study of Texts (1 Viewer)

[persephone]

i thought we had to just to different readings because you that was what the whole module was about. i said how someone with a pyschonalytic context (i don't know how) would read it in that way and i crapped on about something else but i definitely didn't do my own interpretation....

now i'm soooo confused!!

 

[rainonmay]

the question wasnt hard... but like all other questions i juz couldnt write fast enough but i'm pretty happy

 

[Skeeta]

crap crap crap... im along with you people with this being one of the WORST essay questions of all time!!!!

What i did was probably completely wrong but what i did was analyse the first and last scenes of the play and compare shakespeares version to peter brookes (different place and context and time) therefore showing how these things can affect an interpretation


probably hella wrong

does any one know the right answer??? like spoken to a teacher or anything coz im stressing nowwww!!!

 

[skittlebrau]

lol @ the my own interpretation...i didn't have ANY of that in my response ... all i did was other people's interpretations =(~~

Same... I'm so worried now. I just mentioned at the end how investigating other interpretations showed me that different contexts (etc) altered how it would be received. And that was it. It took about half a page. I'M SO FUCKED!

 

[sigh]

I think by 'you' what they actually mean is, sure give your opinion if you must, but you have to back it up with proof either from the text, or from experts opinions. My english teacher has spent a year pointing out that no one actually cares what WE think, they just write that.

For speeches this question was easy BUT it annoys me that I had to learn all twelve... if I'd known they wouldn't specify my answer would have had a lot more detail in it :|

 

[superbird]

i think we all have the right idea. just that i generalized wayyy too much, did anybody back up there ideas with quotes and evidence?

 

[Adeline]

Same... I'm so worried now. I just mentioned at the end how investigating other interpretations showed me that different contexts (etc) altered how it would be received. And that was it. It took about half a page. I'M SO FUCKED!

OMG IM LIKE IN THE EXACT SAME BOAT AS YOU!!!

FUCK KING LEAR IN THE ASS!!!!

 

[~*HSC 4 life*~]

this qu was so bad for speeches! ahhh everything i learned about speeches at school was what ideas were conveyed and HOW, we didnt go into any detail about how they were recieved and how context shaped it blah blah...but i did write two booklets of crap

 

[omg_a]

i think it was a much easier q for speeches than the other stuff. but, for speeches, there are so many more qs u could do, so much more you can do with speeches. *sigh*. not too bad.

 

[Shuter]

I think by 'you' what they actually mean is, sure give your opinion if you must, but you have to back it up with proof either from the text, or from experts opinions. My english teacher has spent a year pointing out that no one actually cares what WE think, they just write that.

For speeches this question was easy BUT it annoys me that I had to learn all twelve... if I'd known they wouldn't specify my answer would have had a lot more detail in it :|

What I did was firstly alanlyse each speech for the techniques he used - repitition, inclusive language ect, then also talked about some of the ideas in his speech. Then I just said whether I rejected/embrassed (it was all rejecting) the parts of the speech and what value it had to me, then tried to explain why (I'm from western society, no repression, ect)

I think it was more about giving your personal views and then trying to find reasons why you view it this way.

 

[Shuter]

this qu was so bad for speeches! ahhh everything i learned about speeches at school was what ideas were conveyed and HOW, we didnt go into any detail about how they were recieved and how context shaped it blah blah...but i did write two booklets of crap

It was great for speeches! Your teacher just didn't teach it right.

We did alot on technique and rehtoric, but we also did alooooot on reception in different contexts and by different people. One of our assessment tasks was "every text has a use by date" debate this point and it was so easy for my second speech I basically had to morph a little bit but wrote almost word for word.

Also in BNW/BR we were reinforced context, context, context so it was easy to relate it to speeches too.

 

[<<lauren>>]

i also did cloudstreet...i left the question till last coz i didnt have the faintest idea what it was talking about, and how my context differed that much from the context of the book. i pieced together a very dodgy answer about the spiritual aspects and the social classes and then tried to explain how my context made me appreciate those readings. i couldnt, and i wasnt really sure what i was supposed to do, so basically i wrote down everything i knew and said, 'i can appreciate these readings from my context'. argh! not a clue! what did other cloudstreet people do...i know a few analysed critical readings, but did anyone analyse a scene/situation?

how will this question be marked if everyone answered it differently...they'll be scratching their heads about that stupid criteria marking now...

 

[Narelle]

????

i briefly mentioned something in the introduction about how a composers context affects their writings and the values inherent and likewise the responders context influences the interpretation they have and the values they take from it

... but only in the intro... then i just crapped on and on about readings and techniques... feminist reading, marxist, freudian

nothing really about my reflection just that "if i were a feminist then... blah blah"

my reflection... this was a wankey question

YAY GWENNIES DEAD

...by the way i was starving and needed to pee when i was doing the module...ending up just staring for like 5 mins

stupid question

 

[Candypants]

Mine was wayyy weird. I wasn't sure how personal it was supposed to be. I talked about terrorism, for Christ's sake. Ahhh....
I used exampls from other productions that adopted 'my' viewpoint to show how it was represented on stage or whatever. I'm like... "Peter Brook thought this because of this, but since I am not BRITISH and I didn't experience POST-SOCIETY I can't really relate". Blah!

I took extracts to mean scenes.

 

[sigh]

OMG! i don't think I used the owrd rhetoric once... hmm.... I hope I don't lose marks for that... what kind of an idiot doesn't mention rhetoric?

I used Socrates and Goldman, cause the way we value their speeches is the complete opposite almost to how they were recieved then... but no use of word rhetoric.. .hmmm....

 

[fantasia]

for lear which productions did you guys tie it to? i used kozintsev's as it shows how he's appropriated the play for his 'place' which is russia.

i also used brook coz it shows existentialist reading as a result of the second world war, hence the bleakness and nihilistic views.

 

[lil_lainy]

wel i did gwenny and pretty sure that whole topic sucked!!!...wat a load of poo

so glad nv again. i didnt evem answer the question just crapped on about the dif readings and stuff..ha wat a blast!

i didnt use the word rhetoric....

 

[sigh]

yes but we did this whole topic on rhetoric and the use of it in speeches. it's a major part of the speeches topic... and i didn't use it... god dammit :|

Ahh well this was by far my worst section... unless they realsie i was making things up in the powerplay section... then thats my worst.... YAY for IN THE WILD! One good mark

 

[laracroft]

i dunno wat ppl are complaining bout, it was good & simple, it didn't matter if u hadn't studied coz u could jsut bullshit, so i thought it was pretty aight.....
and some1 was saying that every1 should get good marks, coz they can't mark ur opinion as wrong, but they will mark you on ur style and language....n if u didn't excell in that it doenst matter how amazing ur own interpretation was...

 

[And?]

That question for King Lear was completely ridiculous!!! Fair enough to ask if we had all our notes and plenty of time etc but thats just nasty springing it on unsuspecting HSC students!! No wonder paper one was relatively easy...paper two was crap.