Module B: Critical Study of Texts (2 Viewers)

[sunnydreama]

Shit shit shit... i read "Shakespeares chracterisation of King Lear" as meaning charcters in the play, so i did Gloucester and Edmund and didn't even mention Lear, then when we were talking bout it afterwards realised King Lear wasn't in italics and they wer ein fact talking abotut he charcter. shit shit shit!

hey
dont worry
i was like you too, didn't realise KL question meant characterisation of the guy and did one of the readings on goneril and regan for one scene and just luckily did Lear for the other three quarters
but maybe you can get away with it coz of your thesis?
like mine was characterisation of lear opened my interpretation to a small extent as it was the way in which characters can be interpreted differently in different context which had the bigger extent.
so im hoping my part on the sisters still fits in my thesis
dont stress
i bet lots of people are in our shoes

Tania

 

[JBakaka]

@ anitasanchez
good for you, you actually fully understood the text

as for the rest of us not-so-talented people:
i think the question sucked. bad. i focused down on patrick, using the psychoanalytical reading, but my marxist reading couldn't really pull through on me
and 2 episodes: forget about it. i just kept blabbing about different scenes, hopefully they'll take it as that i have read and sort of understand the book

the other thing, the book is so not only about patrick, although i didn't argue against the point made in the question, mainly cos i didnt have the evidence. o well, wateva i get, its over, no more english.......of this type anyway. i want to be able to read a book or watch a movie without english getting in the way

 

[Princesa]

This question sucked - i mean, the Cloudstreet question wasn't even on the main character, Fish, it was on Quick. this question was so crap, i never expected it to be so specific. i managed to fill a whole booklet on it though, but i couldn't really comment on Winton's characterisation of Quick. I just ended up relating Quick's characterisation to the main themes of the book and used critic quotes to back my view up. what's worse is i had pages of notes on Quick that i wrote for my trials and i never bothered learning cos there had never been a question before that was on a specific character. i'm happy with how it went though - i feel bad for a couple of the other people in my class who studied just the language, construction and themes of teh book: they came out saying who the hell was Quick?

 

[miss_shady72]

To answer the question, you had to specify your understanding of the text in relation to whatever it was on about. You didn't have to use any personal pronouns. You can show your personal interpretation through other means, it's about how you write in an evaluate manner, using evaluate words. So I'm guessing you'd still be fine, SS06
Unfortunately for you, Miss Shady, you've used a Marxist reading, which means you could have completely missed the point of the question, which was to get what you think applying a Miss Shady reading.

dude, funny.
the thing is, a "reading" is an interpretation. there's absolutely nothing wrong with your personal response following some sort of "reading" that you agree with. the point of the module isn't to make up your own ideas and have a completely original response to the play. it's to explore critical responses, or readings if you like, integrate them, and develop your own response. if my personal response draws from a marxist reading, because that's how i see that play, what's wrong with that?
i think it's pretty much impossible to ignore all the critical readings you've studied and come up with something that is completely your own...what would be the point of the module? congrats if you've done that though :wave:

 

[duz]

KING LEAR

Was it just me or did anyone else interpret the question wrong?

ok i read the question as characterisation in King Lear- meaning the whole play

whereas we're meant to answer the question only about King Lear as it says

characterisation OF King Lear... which means i got my thesis wrong (did i even

hav one?) = d whole essay wrong -____-

coz if i woz d only one then i'm SCREWED!!!

yeh n i just randomly plopped in a paragraph bout Gloucester in d last 2 min coz i

felt sorry for d poor guy!

aha i'm sooooo stupid...

 

[dreamer2006]

Hey all! Well, I studied Wuthering Heights, a confusing story where no one is 100% sure exactly what Emily Bronte, the author is talking about. That's why its so good for critical studies Hmmm...

I was so utterly nervous about this exam! The real problem i had was that my reading of the text had been influenced by other interpretations of the text (feminist, marxist, romantic...) NOT BY JUST ONE CHARACTER WHO I DON'T EVEN THINK IS THE PROTAGONIST OR THE REAL DOMINANT CHARACTER!!!! I expected to go in and have to talk about my reading and how other critical readings had influenced this. And what's this about talking about only TWO major events??? And I had quotes lined up from all over the book!

Oh well, i did my best and i just gotta believe and trust now. I came out thinking i had failed, but i went home talked to my mum and then my tutor and they said what i wrote sounded fine. Oh well, it's just another exam

Have a blessed one all!

Dreamer2006

 

[dreamer2006]

Hey all! Well, I studied Wuthering Heights, a confusing story where no one is 100% sure exactly what Emily Bronte, the author is talking about. That's why its so good for critical studies Hmmm...

I was so utterly nervous about this exam! The real problem i had was that my reading of the text had been influenced by other interpretations of the text (feminist, marxist, romantic...) NOT BY JUST ONE CHARACTER WHO I DON'T EVEN THINK IS THE PROTAGONIST OR THE REAL DOMINANT CHARACTER!!!! I expected to go in and have to talk about my reading and how other critical readings had influenced this. And what's this about talking about only TWO major events??? And I had quotes lined up from all over the book!

Oh well, i did my best and i just gotta believe and trust now. I came out thinking i had failed, but i went home talked to my mum and then my tutor and they said what i wrote sounded fine. Oh well, it's just another exam

Have a blessed one all!

Dreamer2006

 

[dreamer2006]

Hey all! Well, I studied Wuthering Heights, a confusing story where no one is 100% sure exactly what Emily Bronte, the author is talking about. That's why its so good for critical studies Hmmm...

I was so utterly nervous about this exam! The real problem i had was that my reading of the text had been influenced by other interpretations of the text (feminist, marxist, romantic...) NOT BY JUST ONE CHARACTER WHO I DON'T EVEN THINK IS THE PROTAGONIST OR THE REAL DOMINANT CHARACTER!!!! I expected to go in and have to talk about my reading and how other critical readings had influenced this. And what's this about talking about only TWO major events??? And I had quotes lined up from all over the book! :s

Oh well, i did my best and i just gotta believe and trust now. I came out thinking i had failed, but i went home talked to my mum and then my tutor and they said what i wrote sounded fine. Oh well, it's just another exam

Have a blessed one all!

Dreamer2006

 

[Sparcod]

I though they asked for two readings instead of two scenes, at first.

 

[ange310]

I got the king lear question as an assessment (i've only just started yr 12) and was wondering if anyone could give me some advice on a marxist reading of the storm scene? or anything on feminism for the love test? any advice or help is appreciated... thanks guys...