dude your getting mixed with last years HSC and 'values'.Originally posted by TastesGoodBut
and DONT LOOK AT THEMES i cannot mention this enough
do not mention the word THEME in your essay, or any similar words (thematic, thematises, thematrical, themtheretharhills)
you can use the themes to make your comparison, but do not compare the themese compare the values associated with them: ie
Do not compare Appearance/Reality in your essay, compare the values regarding truth
Do not compare DEATH in your essay, compare the values towards death in each.. such as how suicide was the original sin because '[gods] canon 'gaist self slaughter' forbids good old Hammy-D from taking his own life
I agree to an extent - the themes are what u should be talking about, because this is essentially what Stoppard does, he transforms these themes in order to make a comment on society, so this is central to ur argument - but yes, u actually talk about why these themes have been transformed, because of changing values associated with the two different contextsOriginally posted by red_head
dude your getting mixed with last years HSC and 'values'.
You HAVE to talk about themes in conjuntion with their context and how they have been transformed and wat comment is being made about society.
arent you just saying the same thing as minai?Originally posted by TastesGoodBut
you wrong.. you dont talk about themes markers comments have said "responses are mistaking themes for values and are too thematic"
by talking about themes it suggests that youve gone to a study guide and copied it word for word.
the new hsc is about thinking on your own, its designed to make the study guides useless apart from the plot and its designed so that themes do not come into it
im not trying to argue but you should use themes sole as a basis to look for values within... talk about the values associated WITH death and not how death is represented in both
talk about the values associated with making decisions rather than uncertainty
talk about the values associate with having TRUTH rather than appearance versus reality
talk about the value of theatre rather than just who the audience was
look at past questions - they are all "how has the composer of the old said something new" - dont talk about how hes changed the themes talk about how the values that may be ASSOCIATED with the themes have been changed by the context
if you start talking bout themes, mention the word theme or whatever you will get yourself into a trap that MANY ppl get themselves into....
just think about it for a second before u decide to flame me (and yes i understand that you did well minai)
spot on minai if u look at the band5/6 answer on this site u'll see that he/she used to themes to write bout the values etc etcOriginally posted by Minai
u have to look at the values associated with these themes, thats essentially what I've been saying all along, as Cakes pointed out - but I posted in regard to ur original post, where u said "DONT LOOK AT THEMES" and this of course is wrong - u have to look at themes in order to discuss the values behind them
well the renaissance was really well known, like popular, in italy(dont take my word on that, its just what i was told ). im not saying it wasnt important in england, but 1) we're talking about denmark, 2) shakespeare was generally related to the elizabethan empire. he was like a private play writing person, i think (im thinking shakespeare in love, haha). generally, u can just talk about the social heirarchy like peasants to gentry, how the peasants were generally ignored and werent valued. this is the main transformation - all classes are now valued because of the realisation that they were needed for the empire to survive and such things like that.Originally posted by cakes
yup, sorry, elizabethan...but the renaissance went right thru to the 1600s, and is also important cos its where a lot of the ideas in hamlet came from, such as christian humanism, questioning universal ideas (sceptical philosophy of montaigne??), etc.
err yeah, the comment for my essay in the trials was that i didnt explain the context enough. i'm not sure what to say abuot the elizabethan era?? can someone explain?
the only thing i know about it is that at the time hamlet was written, it was towards the end of the elizabethan reign so there was concern about the future in relation to leadership/kingship, as she didnt have any sons or something.. which is why there are issues like that in t he play.. ermm yeah =S what else? =\
Originally posted by starlyte
1) we're talking about denmark, 2) shakespeare was generally related to the elizabethan empire. he was like a private play writing person, i think (im thinking shakespeare in love, haha). generally, u can just talk about the social heirarchy like peasants to gentry, how the peasants were generally ignored and werent valued. this is the main transformation - all classes are now valued because of the realisation that they were needed for the empire to survive and such things like that.