FAQ-King Lear (1 Viewer)

[janaranaran!]

yes! what did the advice line say??

 

[zahmad]

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/pdf_doc/english-adv-support-module-b.pdf

 

[liam9519]

Ok. I was told that the 2006 changes were more a rewording of the syllabus rather than anything major at all. The lady said that readings were given less of an emphasis, and that it is ideal to allude to your readings and tie these to your discussion regarding the question, rather than discuss the actual readings themselves. So it hasn't really been much of a change, but I spose we can expect 2006/2007 style questions to continue. Which is a tad lame as I'm not as familiar with putting forward a discussion of the text itself than I am with discussing my personal response in regards to others', and contextual influence, etc, etc.

But yeah, essentially, less emphasis on readings, allude to them in your answer to the question, but don't discuss the productions themselves in depth. They want you to know more about the text itself.

 

[janaranaran!]

awesome, thanks for letting us all know! this module is so broad, it's great to hear something a little more direct

 

[killarahigh]

Ok. I was told that the 2006 changes were more a rewording of the syllabus rather than anything major at all. The lady said that readings were given less of an emphasis, and that it is ideal to allude to your readings and tie these to your discussion regarding the question, rather than discuss the actual readings themselves. So it hasn't really been much of a change, but I spose we can expect 2006/2007 style questions to continue. Which is a tad lame as I'm not as familiar with putting forward a discussion of the text itself than I am with discussing my personal response in regards to others', and contextual influence, etc, etc.

But yeah, essentially, less emphasis on readings, allude to them in your answer to the question, but don't discuss the productions themselves in depth. They want you to know more about the text itself.

Yeah i think they're just trying to stamp down on the pre-prepared responses because it's much easier to know about texts 'changing over time' throwing in the odd contextual link vs. the actual text characterisation / productions / values.

Which school was that teacher from may i ask and if you know of course

 

[sirfeathers]

yep. My English Adv teacher was a KL marker last year...has been giving us speeches all year about how hsc markers can "spot a pre-prepared essay from a mile away", the more specific questions are trying to pick out people who can really engage with the texts. although I suspect that most people will still have pre-prepared responses.

 

[russianROULETTE]

Ok. I was told that the 2006 changes were more a rewording of the syllabus rather than anything major at all. The lady said that readings were given less of an emphasis, and that it is ideal to allude to your readings and tie these to your discussion regarding the question, rather than discuss the actual readings themselves. So it hasn't really been much of a change, but I spose we can expect 2006/2007 style questions to continue. Which is a tad lame as I'm not as familiar with putting forward a discussion of the text itself than I am with discussing my personal response in regards to others', and contextual influence, etc, etc.

But yeah, essentially, less emphasis on readings, allude to them in your answer to the question, but don't discuss the productions themselves in depth. They want you to know more about the text itself.

okay, phew because i haven't focused on readings at all, really. i know one quite well but i have a better knowledge of the actual play itself.

 

[liam9519]

Which school was that teacher from may i ask and if you know of course

Sorry, not a clue.

 

[tau281290]

My friend called the advice line for KL as well, and the teacher told him to stay away from critics. I wonder why my school is still doing critics...hmm...

So now I suppose we are just to know the text thoroughly, at least 2 key scenes, and stuff all those Nahum Tate, nihilistic etc readings. Am I right?

Anyone got a band 6 response for KL from 2006 or 2007 to share?

 

[liam9519]

I think critics are still important but its more about proving your own points by alluding to them rather than just stating what they thought. Depends on the question really but it seems they are going in that direction.

 

[sophwilli]

So we do not actually talk about the readings more along the lines of the actual text and how different readings have influenced our own interpretation?
our teacher told us to only focus on the readings so totally freaking out.

 

[tau281290]

Most teachers are so frigging wrong, they haven't been updated. Sigh.

 

[munchkink8]

Okay, if you read the "Module B Support Document" on BoS website, it talks about focussing on YOUR interpretation rather than the interpretations of others. As it is a critical study of the TEXT, your main priority is show that you know the text, and set up your argument according to evidence from the text rather than evidence from other productions... As my teacher has said numerous times, directors who have put on productions of Lear are not Shakespeare, thus they have no authority in terms of what the text actually means. You ahve to draw it from the text... Yes I'm repeating myself but it's important.

My teacher who is head of English at my school and has marked all the sections of the HSC has reiterated soo many times that they're not looking for other people's productions. You write what you believe supported by quotes, and then you can add a few sentences saying "This idea is supported by Peter Brook's production....." or whatever. That's why the questions have changed, becuase otherwise people say "Here is a Christian reading" "Here is an Absurdist reading", but nothing really from the actual text. So yeah your interpretation first.