Wednesday 22 May 2019

Poetry tips and model answers

Hi folks,




One last Lit post.

I wanted to reassure you about a couple of things in terms of the comparison question on Love and Relationships (Section B):


  1. Do I have to tack on some context when I'm discussing the poems?
  2. How do I structure my comparison?

Here are my answers to these questions:

1) No! AO3 is 'exploration of ideas/perspectives/contextual factors shown by specific, detailed links between context/text/task'. It is not just context. The key 'idea' is in the question. So, according to AQA, if you answer the question properly, if you ZOOM OUT and think about the big ideas and perspectives in the poems, you will be hitting AO3. Chill out and answer the question.

2) I used to have a very particular structure for the poetry comparison. I think it's still useful and do-able:

     1) Intro - basic comparisons (with key word in Q)
     2) Starting with ideas (based on key word in question) - Poem A and Poem B
     3) Starting with methods (consider this a 'sweep-up' of things you haven't mentioned yet, 
          esp. structure) - Poem A and Poem B
     4) Conclusion

HOWEVER, it is worth pointing out that comparison is no longer an assessment objective in itself, and AQA are quite relaxed now about how the comparison works, as long as you write about two poems and make links between them. Here's what they said in last year's examiner's report:


So, here's my advice now:

  • stay sharply focused on the key word/idea in the question
  • make sure you discuss the writers' methods, especially metaphor and structure
  • think about the journey of each poem (beginnings/middles/ends)
  • move between the poems making connections, BUT...
  • don't move between the poems too often - give yourself time and space to develop your ideas in detail
  • if you get stuck and don't know how to begin: write about Poem A first, then make links back as you write about Poem B
Finally, here are some 'model answers' which I have written this year. I've added comments in the margin to point out what I'm doing. You'll find three poetry essays on this doc: a comparative essay, an unseen poetry essay and a methods comparison. To view the annotations, click full screen, and then click on the individual comments and it will highlight the bit that I'm referring to. Alternatively, download a copy and view it more clearly in Word.




Any questions - get in touch.

GOOD LUCK!


Mr M

Monday 20 May 2019

Climbing My Grandfather: Notes

Hi,

These notes on Climbing My Grandfather are presented without comment. Click to zoom.

Thanks, Danielle!



Sheila: a model answer

Hi all,
Image result for sheila birling


I found a nearly finished Sheila essay on my iPad, which I obviously wrote while you were writing yours. I've finished it off and tidied it up - and here it is:


How far does Priestley present Sheila as an admirable character?

In the early stages of An Inspector Calls, Sheila Birling is far from admirable; Priestley presents her as immature, spoilt and giddy. The stage directions describe her as a ‘girl’ in her early twenties who is ‘rather pleased with life’ and speaks with ‘mock aggressiveness’. These stage directions suggest that she has not had to grow up yet; she has had an easy sheltered life and has not had to take life too seriously thus far. She calls her parents ‘mummy’ and ‘daddy’, suggesting her immaturity, her lack of independence and her deference to the older generation. Her excitable response to receiving her engagement ring makes her seem materialistic, and at one point she addresses her fiancé, Gerald, ‘possessively’. Priestley is implying that Sheila is used to getting everything she wants.


However, Priestley suggests early on that there may be more to Sheila than meets the eye. Her first contribution to the dialogue could be seen as an attempt to undermine his her father: ‘you don’t know all about port - do you’? Perhaps this comment is innocent and honest, but a more combative nature is also suggested in the way she talks to her brother, Eric: ‘You’re squiffy... don’t be an ass, Eric.’ Mrs Birling quickly moves to shut down this conversation, but we can infer that these petty squabbles are common in the family and that they are trying to hide them from their high-status guest. Even Gerald, Sheila’s fiancé, has to be wary of Sheila’s ‘nasty temper’ when she brings up his distance from her ‘all last summer’, but at this point in the play, Sheila is only ‘half serious’.

When the Inspector arrives and tells Sheila about Eva Smith’s suicide, her response shows empathy and compassion. Unlike her father, who dismisses it as ‘horrid business’, Sheila’s response shows that she relates to Eva as a human being: ‘what was she like? Was she pretty?’ Her inquisitiveness here shows that she is immediately receptive to the Inspector’s emotive and moralistic line of questioning. She readily admits to finding her ‘impertinent’ and getting her sacked because she felt ‘jealous of her’. The word ‘impertinent’ is used pointedly by Priestley, as it reveals the Birlings' sense of superiority. Sheila’s use of the word is obviously inherited from her mother, who later uses it to describe Eva. Arthur later accuses her of ‘damned impudence.’ However, as the play develops, Sheila’s attitudes noticeably change. She says that ‘impertinent is such a silly word’. She seems to understand that it is a word that implies inequality and hierarchy. 

Her language changes in other ways too. She becomes more direct, opinionated and sarcastic in her tone. When Gerald mentions the Palace bar, she sharply replies: ‘well, we didn’t think you meant Buckingham Palace’. She also sarcastically describes Gerald as the ‘wonderful fairy prince’. These two royal images are suggestive of a privileged background and idealistic fairytale expectations which have now been punctured by the Inspector’s harsh delivery of the truth. She has become disillusioned - by her family, her fiancé and in terms of her optimistic, carefree view of the world. Her sarcasm reveals this new, bitter disillusionment. Sheila also becomes more metaphorical in her speech. She tells her parents not to build up a ‘wall’ between themselves and Eva Smith. This metaphor represents the rigid social structure that separates the Birlings from the working class. It suggests that she sees her parents as hiding away from the realities of life for working class people and protecting themselves from the consequences of their actions on others. She also seems to know what the Inspector is doing, saying that he will ‘give us the rope, so that we hang ourselves.’ She now seems perceptive. Perhaps Priestley uses Sheila to help communicate the idea of the Inspector’s unusual behaviour to the audience. She becomes an Everyman figure who recognises her flaws and is able to grow and overcome them.

Even though Sheila is immediately receptive and empathetic, posing the question ‘am I really responsible?’, as the play goes on, Priestley uses Sheila to enhance the socialistic viewpoint in the play. Her voice becomes like the Inspector’s: moralistic, direct and blunt. She refuses to entertain the idea that they are not responsible and treats her parents with derision for trying desperately to evade responsibility, sarcastically saying ‘I suppose we’re all nice people now.’ She is a changed character, and becomes an important figure for Priestley, who wants to show that it won’t be an unrealistic ghoul who changes the future, but a new generation who are capable of learning from the mistakes of the past. Sheila takes up the mantle of providing the blunt truth once the Inspector has gone, continuing her stark metaphorical language by saying that ‘we’re all in it - up to the neck.’ Her willingness to accept her mistakes and face the consequences when her parents are trying desperately to wriggle out it makes her an admirable figure.

At the end of Stephen Daldry’s theatrical production of the play, the final curtain comes down between the two generations on the stage: the older Birlings disappear behind the curtain while the younger characters remain front and centre. This is an effective way of communicating Priestley’s historical perspective: once the Edwardians are out of the way, the audience are left looking at their own generation, the people who live through the turmoil of the early twentieth century and emerge in 1945, when the play was first performed, ready to lead the country in a new, socialist direction. Sheila and Eric can be seen as representatives of the generation that rejected more of the same in the 1945 general election, and instead voted for a radical, socialist alternative that led to the establishment of the welfare state and the NHS. Sheila ends the play as a dynamic, brave and moralistic character, and Priestley certainly wants us to admire her for standing up to her parents and recognising and correcting her flaws.



Mr M

Sunday 19 May 2019

Paper 2: An Inspector Calls prep

Hi folks,


I'm going to write a few posts with some last minute reminders for English Literature Paper 2.

First up... An Inspector Calls.

I put together quite a few revision resources in this post from last year

I'm not going to repeat everything from last year's post. Instead, I'll give you a few reminders about specific questions and essay plans.

Structuring your response:

Remember, the nice thing about Section A of Paper 2 is that you get to choose a question. For example:


First up, whether you've got a character question or a theme-based one, you need to put together a quick plan. Investing 5 minutes on planning will give your answer a sense of direction and will help you ensure that you include key points from throughout the play, hopefully leading up to a conceptualised response which considers the character/theme's development and destination.


Here's my basic format for your plan:

1.     Initial impressions  - i.e. how is the character introduced? Initial stage directions? Early contributions to the dialogue? What are the characters' values/attitudes/characteristics? If it's a theme-based question, how is the theme introduced and set-up early on?
2.     Development - i.e. how does the writer develop the character and reveal the complexities/contradictions/changes compared to our initial impressions? If it's a theme, how does Priestley explore the issue as the play goes on?
3.    Destination - i.e. how has the character changed by the end of the play? What role does the character end up fulfilling? What does the character come to represent? If a theme, how does the ending of the play leave the audience feeling about the idea in the question?

Here's what a basic plan on Mr Birling might look like:
1.     Initial impressions:  Stg. dir: 'rather provincial'. Self-obsessed and 'hard-headed businessman': speeches. Dramatic irony to undermine. Capitalist - and critical of socialist attitudes: 'lower costs'.
2.    Development: defensive and attempts to intimidate Insp (mentions Colonel Rob). Euphemisms to evade responsibility/guilt. Dismissive attitude. Glad that others are involved. Doesn't accept responsibility ('bees in a hive').
3.    Destination: Apparent regret, but still only thinks in financial terms ('I'd give thousands'). Laughs at the 'famous younger generation'. Circular structure mirrors his return to complacency. Birling = capitalism. Static character intended to personify all the faults and complacency of Edwardian England. Characterisation is not subtle - buffoonish from the very start. 

 It would be a good idea for you to practice doing this for the key characters, especially Gerald and Sheila. Think about what your essential quotes would be for these characters too, especially quotes which allow you to discuss Priestley's methods. E.g:

Sheila - essential quotes:

1.     stage dir: 'rather pleased with life', 'half serious, half playful', 'mock aggressiveness', 'possessively'.
2.    Childlike: 'mummy/daddy'.
3.    'Nasty temper': 'Don't be an ass, Eric'. 'You don't know all about port' - hints at the real Sheila
4.    'What was she like? Was she pretty?' Genuinely interested. Relates to Eva, but still shallow.
5.    'Impertinent is such a silly word' - irony: she used it in Act One.
6.    Sarcasm: 'We didn't think you meant Buckingham Palace'.
7.    Perceptiveness and metaphorical language: rope/wall
8.    Mature: 'Don't mind mother.'
9.    Moralises: ‘You began to learn something. And now you've stopped. You're ready to go on in the same old way’. 
Somewhere, I've written a Sheila essay and I'll send it by tomorrow. Alternatively, you can read The Traditional Teacher's here. He has sample answers on several characters and themes on his resources page, here.

The next post will be on Love and Relationships. But before I sign off, here are all of the other past questions on An Inspector Calls. You'll know you're ready when you can look at any of these and confidently knock together a five minute plan. 


Mr M 

P.S. After another exam board had a question on the 'Porter scene' from Macbeth, a lot of teachers are predicting a question on the significance of Edna, or perhaps Alderman Meggarty and Charlie Brunswick, so you'd better revise them too.

P.P.S.
I'M KIDDING!