I wrote this to someone about 'Cloudstreet' but it's the same module so I hope it helps a bit:
First thing to say is that your 'personal interpretation' is critical to the whole unit – one of the most central aspects and it is totally different from the other literary perspectives you have mentioned. I really understand your confusion though and I think it's really common. The whole idea can seem so overwhelming cause you learn about these complex critical theories and then you have this panicked idea that you have to devise your own heaps cool critical theory called 'Studentism' or something! Then it's terrifying the prospect of starting an essay: “According to my personal persepctive ...” and trying to say something that hasn't been said! First just have a read of the following which shows how critical your interpretation is!
This is from a support doc for teachers from the BOS:
“Misplaced emphasis (on critical interpretations like those you have listed) may lead students to rely on the views of others, rather than developing their own informed view. Exploring the perspectives of others and discussion and evaluation of how the prescribed text has been received in different contxts should enhance rather than overshadow a student's personal engagement with and close analysis of the prescribed text.”
The key idea I think is context, which again is central to any discussion in this module. Apart from recognising that the novel was written in a particular context, if you think about those other 'perspectives' they are just examples for you to explore that prove (if you like) that viewing something from a different context will give you a makedly different view. This covers the requirement that you study: “....the contexts of others who have responded to the text and the social and historical circumstances which influence responses.” But you do have a unique and valid position yourself. You have a context too; social, historical, cultural, and that informs your first impression of the text. Looking at other perspectives (by the way the support doc. states that other valid sources include the perspectives of teachers and other students) is just a way of testing and refining, challenging and validating aspects of your own response.
Obviously, because it is deemed a 'significant text' your personal persepctive can't be: “I thought it was a crap book and they all have dicky names” - so if you hated it you'll have to fake it but I'm sure you teacher encouraged you to love it. He's an amazing writer isn't he and Australian! But – you do start with your own unique idea of what you liked, why?, what you thought mattered and why, what moved you and why and what you didn't get. Then you start to look at what others have to say and you're like: “Well, I never got that when I read it, that part didn't leap out at me but I can see that if you were coming from that persepctive (feminist say) that what he/she said/did there (or whatever) is really important (and as a prelude to textual integrity: “I know it's important because of the way the composer conveyed it” but that's later).”
Tim Winton has said about writing: “It's sort of a mystery to me but, you know, the process of writing is, you know, it's mysterious and the way things are receivd by people I guess, you know, is equally a mystery.” I think this is good cause it validates that the way you see it – matters. Having said all that you're not hoping for earth shattering stuff about Cloudstreet that no one else has ever heard of it's just you're a bit of a magpie, taking stuff from everywhere to develop and strenghten you idea about what matters. When you start an essay you don't need to literally acknowledge the whole way through that you are giving your own personal response unless that is explicitly asked for. So you don't necessarily have to talk in the first person the whole time: “I think that ..”. It's just that you show the depth of your understanding from the way you write. I would acknowledge if you are discussing something from the point of view of Post-Colonialism or something though.
If you had to answer something about a personal persepctive it would be better to just keep it in the third person and say how such a great book evokes responses:
“Tim Winton's 1991 novel, Cloudstreet, is a humourous, sprawling saga full of tragedy and miracles woven with unbreakable threads of family, of love and acceptance. Such a rich exploration of the wonderous yet commonplace lives of ordinary people evokes a response on many levels, spiritual, emotional and intellectual. In his distinctively genuine, poetic voice, Winton tenderly guides the responder to a conclusion which is life-affirming and uplifting and offers some sense of reconciliation to us all.”
Now I'm not saying that's good and I totally stole the bit in italics but it's just to give you an idea that you can say a novel evokes a personal response/perspective/viewpoint without having to spell it out. Obviously a question would guide you to more specifics but just say the stuff you think with conviction and evidence! And then add it bits from other persepctives that suit what you want to say. Last thing on this – if the question is a thesis statement about a particular critical persepctive you argue for that particular standpoint and give evidence to support it's validity but also argue it's worth from your viewpoint.
