Module B - Critical Study of Texts (1 Viewer)

[ujuphleg]

I knew this was going to come up (ok not knew knew but had an inkling that the question was going to be of this kind)

With the whole module, everyone frets and worries about learning this interpretation, that interpretation and everything -- but few people actually have an interpretation of their own. This question was tricky cos it was asking people what YOU thought - not what Brook thought, not what Richard Eyre thought, not was Nahum Tate thought.

This was critical study of texts at its best. And because I knew how I would, as a director, stage this play in my own interpretation, I thought it was great.

I'm gonna get rotten fruit thrown at me now aren't it guys?!

 

[matt_a]

I knew this was going to come up (ok not knew knew but had an inkling that the question was going to be of this kind)

With the whole module, everyone frets and worries about learning this interpretation, that interpretation and everything -- but few people actually have an interpretation of their own. This question was tricky cos it was asking people what YOU thought - not what Brook thought, not what Richard Eyre thought, not was Nahum Tate thought.

This was critical study of texts at its best. And because I knew how I would, as a director, stage this play in my own interpretation, I thought it was great.

I'm gonna get rotten fruit thrown at me now aren't it guys?!

I totally agree with you mate. We performed King Lear for our major school production this year, and I was involved (I got to be France Act 1, Edmond Act 3, and some soldier in Act 4 and 5). So i had a good understanding before we even started it.

Why are people going "extract, we had to know extracts!"
WTF is wrong with you people! It's a play, you are expected to know in detail at least TWO scenes. How they work, what's in them etc etc. I don't know what you people studied if you did not do this! Our teacher told us to know 6 scenes in detail, 3 from main plot and 3 from Sub Plot. That way you are prepared for any question that comes up, and you have a detailed understanding of the play, rather than a oppinionated understanding from someone else.

I agree, this was critical study at its best!

 

[KarmaKitten]

I discussed scenes, used quotes and linking it to different modern perspectives such as gender and existentialist, however i hated hated this question, it was bloody confusing

 

[steph@nie]

yea .... but we wanna know what happened DURING the exam.

lear. totally ass raped me.

 

[chiken_lips]

King Lear

What i did and i was happy with my response was talk about an act and how it developed a theme and then how the theme could be interpretated and how it has been interpretated by diff ppl due to their contexts and then my response to their reading shaped by my own context. so eg: theme of family division - feminist reading - disagreed becoz of the family breakdowns in society - eg. de facto and same sex. then chaos and order - absurd - agreed due to the heightened terrorism that was shaping my context ... but i used lots of quotes and things - what do you reckon?

 

[Stephagain]

Lear also assraped me. Ive averaged 86 in eng this year... I COMPARED LEAR'S FAMILY HIERACHY TO A CHRISRMAS TREE AND ENDED MY ESSAY WITH - "Because Im not elizabethan, I dont really get it. Im sure elizabethans would get it, but because of my context i thought it was a bit shit".

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

once again module b has screwed me over!
wrote 4 fuking pages! argh!
fark fark fark!

 

[kat_mandu]

I agree that Harwood sux. what the fuck was with our own context....what were we suppose to add our life story!

 

[Vuki]

Can anyone who is confident straight out tell me if this was the right way to approach it. I bloody got 95 this year for English and I want to hold a band 6 for it (wait, I need to hold a band 6). Oh and I owned Section I and III but had some issues with II. Did King Lear by the way

-INTRO

-OUTLINED MARXIST AND ARISTOTELIAN interpretations and why we value these

-OPENING SCENE - looked at it from a marxist viewpoint, backed up with a production, aristotelian viewpoint, backed up with a production, then talked about what I believe to be the best way to interpret it

-LEAR'S DOWNFALL (here I took 'extract' fairly liberally, I used lear's rejection by goneril and regan and also the storm scene_ - looked at it from a marxist viewpoint, looked at it from an aristotelian viewpoint, then again suggested what I beileve to the tbe most appropriate way to look at this part of the play

CONCLUSION

====
The sections where I suggested my viewpoint weren't discussed in quite as much detail as the other 2 readings but I still did go into a decent amount of detail. I also avoided using 'I' and 'My' as I feel these sound too forced in an essay.

Can anyone say with conviction that I approach it the right way (or a way that can be interpreted as more than satisfactory by the markers?), our english head teacher straight away afterwards that it was ok but she seemed to be daydreaming.

 

[LadyBec]

I HATE YOU BOS FOR THAT QUESTION!
and i hate Gwen Harwood more for writing poetry i find it difficult to understand, let alone interpreate or whatever-the-hell in a exam situation.
I'm gonna fail this module

 

[GromReaper]

Extracts in Wuthering Heights?! I hate everything now.

I talked about Freudian analysis of Hareton, how a feminist reading of the book will focus on how women are represented and GODDAMN BRONTE; I HOPE YOU'RE BURNING RIGHT NOW. I managed to write about 2 pages of my small writing.

 

[countdown]

i HATE dis Q!!!!
got me so confusED!!! like wtf?
i only did 5 pages n i dint do a conclusion!
Does any1 know how much marks im gonna loose?

 

[Randogz]

lear ques

hmm, i thought it was pretty damn hard. i mean the wording wasnt exactly straight forward was it? i mean, dont know about u guys but we focussed alot more on various interpretations than the actual text and form of Lear. i just chucked everything from my influences and how i would receive it to other ppl's interpretations, brook, russian and feminism. i had no idea about extracts, i did scenes and quotes!! hahha very dodgy...LEar took so much concentrating that i lost time on FRONTLINE. there goes my band 6 doesnt it? actually, on a positive note, my teahcer is an HSC marker and said the amiguity and wording of the question means that it will be marked fairly easily coz every kid would have taken it to mean a different thing.

 

[tallguy87]

what?

am i gonna fail that module because i didn't mention my own interpretation? :,(

but how woudl they know what your own interpretation is?
see your interpretation caould be from a feminist or romantic perspective... cause i did harwood...so i dont think ull get marked down for that...

hopefully...

 

[Wesnat]

About KING LEAR
A lot of you are extremely concerned about this question, and I can understand why. I am a bit concerned myself. But here are things that might calm you down a bit. I asked my English teacher, who is an experienced HSC marker, and here is what he says about a few things:

1. the 2 extracts - he said that most students will interpret 'extracts' as scenes, which is valid. But those who interpret them as quotes are also just as valid. HSC markers do not have a set marking criteria yet. They will see what the students' interpretations are of the question (is the question asking this or that, etc), then they will mark the answers based on these as well. My teacher said, "you cannot mark them wrong because they interpreted the question differently".
So, extracts can be both quotes and scenes. I, personally, interpreted 'extracts' as quotes.

2. own interpretation - it does not have to be YOUR VERY OWN interpretation. You can say that your interpretation is influenced by feminist reading or postmodernist reading, etc. You should, however, consider the current social and political climate (not necessarily in detail, ie. the war in Iraq, etc. Just general is fine, for example, the treatment of women and their increasingly important role in society). This was what I did, and my teacher said it was perfectly fine.

Now, from what my friends and I discussed after the exam:

1. Never, in the question, did it say that we must focus on the two extracts. It only said 'refer to'. So, it's like Telling the Truth - 'refer to your prescribed text and at least two other related texts of your own choosing'. The extracts could be used to merely support your answer. If it wanted us to focus on the extracts, and write a whole heap of things about them, it would say '... focusing your response on at least TWO extracts'.

2. I don't think you should use first person. Sure, it says 'your interpretation' but unless it's a speech or a feature article, I don't think you should be using it. I think it should be objective. The examiners will know what your interpretation is from the way you agree with and validate other people's interpretations. Anyone disagree with me and my friends, here?

 

[joujou_84]

You can use "I" if it says to in the question to give "ur" interpretation. i heard from some BOS person once dat if they say "ur" than thats a dead give away to give ur own opinon by either saying "i" or "the responder". anyway it was an easy question. all u had to do was use a scene from some production talk bout one theme one interpretation, some techiques and basically agree with the interpretaion saying it is relevant to toadys society as (for example if u used family pysocolgical reading) today there are heaps of disfunctional families and divorce and stuff and then do this again with another production , its scene, techniques, theme and why would agree or even disagree with its interpration, agreeing is so much easier and dosent waste as much time. anyway compared to the exam questions ive done in class this year, this exam was a breeze.

 

[Randogz]

yeah that first person thing really got me. it didnt seem like they were asking a structured essay question at all. i thinki started off writing an essay, but towards the tiring end i started to say "i". you've put my mind at ease a little Wesnat

 

[countdown]

i hope ur right Wesnat~ coz dats wa i did~

 

[Randogz]

hmm, i dont think i would necessarily class it as "easy". i go to selective high school and everyone i spoke to was thrown. some only referred to the Lear because it said "prescribed text" and then others (like me) wrote about a little too much in 40 mins. god i was throwing everything in from my interpretation to others interpretations to the textual integrity, coherency and universal qualities. i said from my perspective in these "damged contemporary times" i was influenced by my familial nuclear base, but also influenced by the amount of freedom i had as a woman and therefore could relate to the feminism one. i was really thrown by the "extract" part. i dont think i actually referred to two (quotes or scenes) in detail, i just said that i would focus upon the first scene as it showed how crimes in the family could affect socialisation and context ("now our joy, what can u say to draw a third more opulent than your sisters?") and the re-uniting and redemption in the last...and how Brook focussed on the tragedy rather than emancipation like Kozinitsev, which was how i would do it.
do you think this would have been ok?

 

[lamchopz]

well i dont think by using the first person is the way to go. in writing essays, u need to be objective regardless of the question asking u otherwise. to the best way to do that i think is to state it as "the responder" like someone said earlier or the contemporary audience. however, its bitter sweet now, preaching philosophy wen i didnt do it.