I am confused (1 Viewer)

[dance2urownbeat]

ok i do citizen kane but it's still module b.
my teacher told me on thursday module b is all about YOUR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the text.
you can then contrast your view with critics interpretations (or in your case, productions im guessing) but then always come back to your own.
like "this scene shows my interpretation because of X. joe bloggs interpreted this way, because of Y. but i think Y better supports my interpretation because..."
but it is mainly about what you think the text is about, so when it said something about not letting others interpretations overshadowing yours, that's what it meant. use their ideas to support or contrast your own personal view.

EDIT: module b is all about first person, since its your personal interpretation.

 

[inter108]

Powerplay is gay!

>.> Hardest module by far.

 

[gen.shottaffeta]

You don't need to talk about more than one reading.
You ONLY have to talk about you own reading, and you can back it up with a production...such as - the play focuses on power, which is shown through blah production through blah techniques.
But you won't be marked down at all if you don't mention other readings or other interpretations.
Analyse the play according to your own reading and you'll do fine.

 

[*Baby-K*]

Just another thing with your "personal interpretation"........are you allowed to use first person?

I used 'I' and 'we' in the topic and closing sentence that's all

 

[Shadose]

Hey, I want to confirm something:

So, we don't need a definition of the interpretations, like where Marxist perspective comes from and what they focus when they interpret a text.

Is that true?

 

[tau281290]

Just another thing with your "personal interpretation"........are you allowed to use first person?

Probably, the question is inviting you to contribute to it, and based on high range sample answers, they use first person as well.

 

[gen.shottaffeta]

Hey, I want to confirm something:

So, we don't need a definition of the interpretations, like where Marxist perspective comes from and what they focus when they interpret a text.

Is that true?

That's correct
Although you can sort of include it when you analyse it....like Lear's power is shown through these techniques, if that makes sense?

 

[Kirsty Xx]

With Lear I hear the board is trying to shift the emphasis back to the original play and not worry too much about productions and readings.

And as an afterthought, how are you guys structuring your essays? I was thinking of structuring it according to themes.

Have a look here for structure of the play:
http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=185254&highlight=King+lear

Then here for interpretations and use of productions/readings (also which person to write in):
http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=184580&highlight=King+lear

And if all else fails please have a look at my sticky thread:
http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=185375

 

[Shadose]

That's correct
Although you can sort of include it when you analyse it....like Lear's power is shown through these techniques, if that makes sense?

Okay, I see thnks.

 

[*Baby-K*]

This is my paragraph which used to be a feminist reading. I think that's what BOS means/wants. Feel free to tell me if I am wrong, so I fix my mistakes before monday.
Contrarily, a feminist interpretation concerns itself with the relationship between men and women still relevant today. In King Lear this is presented through patriarchy, demonstrated by Lear’s treatment of his daughters, underlined by his severe tone and rigorous mood in ‘Which of you shall we say doth love us most/ That we our largest bounty may extend’, it is however also ironic as he has planned to give the largest part of the kingdom to Cordelia. In the society of 21st century, women have been given more rights and are now more than ever equal to men. Evidently, Gonerill and Regan have been given power and therefore strive to exercise their rights over men, however, they are not always successful. The theme of duty of women to men is particularly palpable in the employment of misogyny, which is emphasized by Lear’s figure of speech with his daughters. The angry atmosphere, which he conjures emphasised by alliteration- ‘Darkness and devils! Saddle my horses; call my train together. Degenerate bastard, I’ll not trouble thee; Yet have I another daughter’. It can also be noted that when Lear’s daughters don’t fulfil their duties to their king and father, Lear overreacts and descends to cursing them as ‘unnatural hags’. He, furthermore, as some men in the 21st century do, sees women as property. Thus, in case of Cordelia, the only daughter who isn’t awarded with authority by her father, King Lear disposes of as he sees fit, as she has a duty to do what the men command- ‘Let pride, which she calls plainness, marry her’. Nevertheless, a deconstruction of a feminist interpretation emphasises the notion that it is still relevant in the 21st century amplifying my personal interpretation of the play.

 

[gen.shottaffeta]

I think that's ok.
Or you could just say "King Lear, a play about the relationship between men and women, is still relevant today"
I dunno, I just avoid 'labelling' my reading altogether, because it makes it seem less like I've just stolen someone else's reading hehe.
But I think that's fine.

 

[jazzyphaye]

whoa so confusing.

so what happens if we just focus on two particular readings throughout the essay but they all have like shit about themes/genre/characters and stuff in it?

cause i did it for my trials and i got 17/20 and now i'm not sure if i should do that for hsc :S

 

[*Baby-K*]

whoa so confusing.

so what happens if we just focus on two particular readings throughout the essay but they all have like shit about themes/genre/characters and stuff in it?

cause i did it for my trials and i got 17/20 and now i'm not sure if i should do that for hsc :S

It depends on the question of course but the main idea is to focus everything around your PERSONAL interpretation which you must include and then it is up to you if you want to use 2 other readings to back up your personal one, emphasising the main ideas of it and whatever the question throws at us (character relationships, extracts etc)

 

[shakky15]

This is my paragraph which used to be a feminist reading. I think that's what BOS means/wants. Feel free to tell me if I am wrong, so I fix my mistakes before monday.
Contrarily, a feminist interpretation concerns itself with the relationship between men and women still relevant today. In King Lear this is presented through patriarchy, demonstrated by Lear’s treatment of his daughters, underlined by his severe tone and rigorous mood in ‘Which of you shall we say doth love us most/ That we our largest bounty may extend’, it is however also ironic as he has planned to give the largest part of the kingdom to Cordelia. In the society of 21st century, women have been given more rights and are now more than ever equal to men. Evidently, Gonerill and Regan have been given power and therefore strive to exercise their rights over men, however, they are not always successful. The theme of duty of women to men is particularly palpable in the employment of misogyny, which is emphasized by Lear’s figure of speech with his daughters. The angry atmosphere, which he conjures emphasised by alliteration- ‘Darkness and devils! Saddle my horses; call my train together. Degenerate bastard, I’ll not trouble thee; Yet have I another daughter’. It can also be noted that when Lear’s daughters don’t fulfil their duties to their king and father, Lear overreacts and descends to cursing them as ‘unnatural hags’. He, furthermore, as some men in the 21st century do, sees women as property. Thus, in case of Cordelia, the only daughter who isn’t awarded with authority by her father, King Lear disposes of as he sees fit, as she has a duty to do what the men command- ‘Let pride, which she calls plainness, marry her’. Nevertheless, a deconstruction of a feminist interpretation emphasises the notion that it is still relevant in the 21st century amplifying my personal interpretation of the play.

i think your analysing the text through a feminist perspective... by that i mean your removing your personal engagement (shoving in that last line is not enough i dont think).

i also think the techniques are a bit light on.. maybe a few more would be good. such as for the line 'let pride, which.. marry her'... i think thats a metaphor isnt it?

 

[tau281290]

Anyone got a band 6 sample essay from the last HSC so that we can all have a read and solve all these confusions?

 

[danz90]

Well I'm royally screwed (lol @ the pun) ... the hsc advice line says that the readings aren't really important. my KL responses throughout the year have focused around TWO readings... thats how our teacher taught us.
far out.. i never really included personal interpretation.

here's a paragraph from one of my responses, see what u think and whether its suitable:

Eyre’s deeply emotional family-psychological reading of King Lear reveals the tyrannical behaviour that creates conflict and connivance within familial relationships, enhancing my personal interpretation of King Lear. In Act 2.4, after Lear is rejected by Gonerill, and his retinue of knights is diminished, Lear slyly insults Gonerill; “I will not trouble thee... a disease, that’s in my flesh... boil... plague-sore...carbuncle.” A close-up shot of Gonerill sobbing, showing tears rolling down her cheeks in conjunction with Lear’s vicious, aggressive and overbearing tone, highlight Eyre’s intensely personal depiction of the pain caused by the brutal nature of the father and his tragic flaw of self-centredness, as well as emphasis of Lear’s role in the crushing of the father-daughter relationship. This scene clearly depicts Lear’s tragic flaws of stubbornness, irrationality as well as immorality, which provide an avenue for Gonerill and Regan to usurp Lear’s power, as a result of his own folly. Eyre’s directorial approach reveals the cruel, painful and tragic consequences of Lear’s folly behaviour upon his daughters while his power and status are slowly crushed by those who he once trusted, amplifying the audience response of irony at a pleading king, and sympathy towards a king blindly facing his impending doom. Furthermore, Brook’s depiction prompts the audience to bridge a personal connection to the play, take an intimate insight into family values and reshape their appreciation of the performance as a cautionary tale revealing the tragic destruction of a family as a consequence of a father’s foolish, insensitive actions.

 

[tau281290]

I guess the HSC advice line is overloaded with people asking for KL as it is the most confusing module ever. I am now cutting most of my readings and the essay is so short now >.<

 

[Shadose]

Darn, I rang the HSC advice line too, and they did said that they wanted a personal voice; your personal interpretation, and the specific perspectives doesn't matter :'(

So what are you guys going to do about it if your teachers stuffed you up too?

Or what do you recommend?

 

[danz90]

but then what the heck is this dot point in the rubric for:

Evaluate the text's reception in a range of contexts.

if that doesn't mean how the text has been interpreted by different readings which are based in different social contexts.. then IM SCREWED.

 

[shakky15]

Darn, I rang the HSC advice line too, and they did said that they wanted a personal voice; your personal interpretation, and the specific perspectives doesn't matter :'(

So what are you guys going to do about it if your teachers stuffed you up too?

take out the readings... or if u include them just say that they guided ur personal appreciation of the text

but seriously, what does personal voice really mean? essentially its like ur gonna rite any other essay isnt it? arguing a particular thesis?? maybe just use the readings (just refer to them here and there) so as to show u have been exposed to other perspectives and that has shaped ur understanding. Thats what the module is essentially about.

gl