Common Module Composers draw us into the world of the text inviting us to share a representation of human experiences.

Critically analyse how your prescribed text shares its representation.

Texts invite audiences into their world, exposing them to individual and collective human experiences that

challenge preconceptions and illuminate a greater understanding of the world. Ivan O’Mahoney’s 2011

documentary Go Back to Where You Came From (hereafter Go Back) presents a conversion narrative that

reveals the director’s modus operandi, wherein a journey from ignorance to acceptance can be achieved through

the reception of refugees’ narratives and perspectives. Thus, this exposure to others’ experiences reveals the

complex nature of prejudice, fosters empathy through personal connections, whilst highlighting the pertinence

of storytelling in exploring the universal human experience of suffering.

Go Back promulgates the exposure to human perspectives as instigating a transformation towards acceptance

that scrutinises the complex nature of prejudice. The conversion narrative from insularity to empathy

underscores O'Mahoney's condemnation of apathetic prejudice towards refugees in the 21st-century Australian

zeitgeist, presenting the participants' peripatetic ‘reverse refugee journey' as a vessel for ideological change. The

documentary communicates that prejudice arises from ignorance and a fear of the unknown, exemplified in

‘uneducated’ Raquel’s dismissive characterisation of Muslim headscarves as dysphemistic ‘tea towels’.

However, her manufactured exposure to the shared experiences with asylum seekers facilitates her journey of

overcoming prejudice, culminating in her symbolic handshake of acceptance with a headscarf-clad woman in

The Response that subsequently invites responders to reflect personally on their prejudice through this

reconciliatory journey. Adam and Roderick’s journeys similarly reveal initial prejudices through dysphemistic

descriptions of refugees as ‘criminals’, but transform during the raid in Malaysia, where they hope the refugees

being invaded are ‘bad, bad people’ and that ‘if it’s the Chins, I’ll lose my sh*t’. This epizeuxis highlights the

inconsistent and paradoxical nature of prejudice, whereby subjugation is only tolerated under conditions of

ignorance and rejected when a personal connection exists through exposure, such as with the Chins,

interrogating the audience’s prejudices through their vicarious experiences with the participants. This

engagement with new perspectives and journey towards acceptance exposes the inconsistence and malleable

nature of prejudice in Go Back.

O’Mahoney develops personal connections between the participants and the audience as a shared experience

through exposure to cultivate empathy for the refugee experience. O'Mahoney's aim to catalyse a more

humanised discourse on the sociopolitical refugee debate in Australia after the Children Overboard Affair of

2001 is achieved through mini-biographies and montages that establish the participants’ identities. Their diverse

perspectives reflect the audience's views, ultimately prescribing a narrative transaction and personal connection

through the audience’s vicarious experiences. This inextricable link effectively fosters empathy within both the

audiences and participants through an exposure to refugees' reality, described idiomatically by Adam as

allowing them to see ‘reality on the other side of the coin'. Deo further encapsulates the central notion that

stimulating political and social change is derived through empathy with others’ experiences, whereby if he can

metaphorically ‘touch your heart, immediately you are able to understand me’. The cultivation of empathy

through personal connections is also heightened by shared experiences, such as Raye’s interactions with

Maisara, where their shared experiences of loss as mothers expatiates empathy within Raye. Her following

cathartic revelation having ‘trouble...carrying pregnancies through’ is supplemented by contemplative

non-diegetic music, evoking an emotional response from the audience, fostering empathy for the participants

and refugees through the narrative connections created by O’Mahoney. The ideological connections between

the audiences and participants in Go Back develops empathy for the refugees through exposure to their human

experiences.

Go Back highlights the powerful role of storytelling in exposing the audience to refugees’ narratives, prompting

introspection and gaining a greater understanding of the universal experience of suffering. O'Mahoney's

hybridisation of documentaries and the revelatory nature of reality television allows for the communication of

stories that cultivate compassion within the audience. Narration is used as a documentary trope to convey

statistics such as’1 in 10 Iraqis have been displaced’, evincing the ubiquity of refugees’ suffering. These appeal

to the human sense of logos, inviting the audience to engage with the text by adding an objective dimension to

its conversion narrative. However, O’Mahoney subverts traditional documentary structures, mediatising life

narratives by presenting individual stories that reflect the cultural context and suffering of refugees. Thus, by

humanising the ongoing ‘social experiment’ through voiceovers and personal testimonies that appeal to pathos,

O’Mahoney employs storytelling to expound the asylum seekers’ adversities and challenge the responder’s

assumptions. This personalises the broader collective political discourse where individual experiences are often

overlooked, inviting audiences to gain a greater understanding of suffering through refugees’ stories, evident in

Roderick and Bahati’s conversation. Their dialogic exchange is presented in a wide still shot where Bahati’s

recount invites Roderick into a personal but shared encompassing experience as politicians. This communicates

the notion that facilitation of dialogue and cultural exchange of refugees’ stories in isolated cases prompts

broader reflection within the audience on the universality of human suffering, culminating in Roderick’s

exclamatory realisation and empathy in ‘that’s something else’. O’Mahoney highlights the importance of

storytelling in igniting new perspectives on the universality of human adversity.

“Refugees. Asylum Seekers. Boat People.” Tricolon

designed to highlight the plurality of labels – and therefore perspectives and experiences – that are attached to the topic of refugees.

News Footage establishes the series as a documentary and locates the action within a recognisable, real-life context. In doing so, the composers invite the audience themselves to reflect upon the human experiences

“I like it all” “I didn’t really like their food…”

Match cut (to table) and smash cut (of Racquel outside)

The inconsistencies in human behaviour is evident in Racquel’s duplicity towards the Masudi’s food. Although her views on refugees are established bluntly and honestly in the introduction with little regard for social decorum, her motivations to lie

“They are the true refugees” (Self-realised) Aphorism

It is first and foremostly an acknowledgement of their condition, which subsequently allows Raye to reflect internally and eventually discard her own prejudices

“In Burundi, Bahati was vice president of a political party, just like Roderick is in

Australia.” Eye-level angle shot

Each participant is grouped with a refugee that share a common ground (Wasmi’s fear of water leading into dialogue with Adam [lifeguard] and Raye’s maternal instincts in relation to Maisara’s dead baby)

HIJAB LADY TO RACQUEL “What your experience has shown us is that ultimately, the long held…... fundamentally based on

ignorance, fear of the unknown and potentially fear of the people we haven’t

necessarily met yet.”

Self-explanatory, however keep in mind of casting choice. Casting choice of a well-learned woman of middle eastern heritage

If Question is ON FORM AND STYLE

- Paragraph 1

- Focus more on character arcs and archetypes

- Raquel’s food comment, match cut - prejudice is inauthentic and can often be unexpressed

- Focus on the manufactured and deliberate casting choice of the Hijab lady

- Add quick cuts and dark lighting inviting the audience into the confronting raid Malaysia

- Paragraph 2

- When talking about Deo → focus more on the connections allowing reality through form

- Talk more about the Raye part

- Paragraph 3

- Talk about news footage with statistics

- Roderick and Bahati’s quote → deliberate pairing to allow for communication of shared

experiences and support conversion narrative

If Question if ON CONTEXT

- Paragraph 1

- Put ‘stop the boats’ campaign and growing multiculturalism of Australia

- Paragraph 2

- Fine I guess → put use of news footage to frame the sociopolitical debate for responder

- Paragraph 3

- Also focus on postmodern hybridisation of genres was becoming more commonplace

Module A The scrutiny of textual conversations through exegesis of resonances and dissonances enables greater

cognizance of the prominent thematic concerns expressed in texts and how context shapes these. William

Shakespeare’s 1611 play The Tempest serves as the hypotext that invites new interpretations from Margaret

Atwood’s 2016 novel Hag-Seed, forming intertextual connections and elucidating universal concepts through

Atwood’s individualist and postmodern perspective in contrast to Shakespeare’s Jacobean values. This

dialogism facilitates greater insight into their metatheatrical exploration of texts as illusionary experiences and

the universal desire for vengeance.

The Tempest and Hag-Seed are inherently metatheatrical texts, reflecting on their construction as the crafting of

illusionary and transient experiences through disparate contextual paradigms. The Tempest’s introduction of the

artifice of theatre in this conversation is through characters’ self-awareness of their transient and superficial

existence within plays, exemplified in Antonio's allusion to metatheatricality in 'what's past in prologue’. The

Jacobean literary milieu fashions Shakespeare’s subtle depiction of metatheatricality as he breaks convention,

evident in Prospero’s double entendre of being within ‘the great globe...’, a self-reflexive statement on the

play’s narrative being confined to the Globe Theatre itself. Shakespeare further reflects on the playwriting

process as a means towards a temporary illusion through Prospero’s cognizant comments on ‘the cloud-capped

towers, the gorgeous palaces’, vivid imagery of archetypal settings in Jacobean theatre, followed by how

characters must inevitably ‘sleep’ in this transient artifice. The ethereal imagery of characters in theatre being

metaphorically ‘such stuff as dreams are made on’ further highlights texts as transient manifestations of

Shakespeare’s imagination. Thus, his introspective and reflexive assay on metatheatricality is foundational to

Atwood’s initiated conversation in Hag-Seed.

Hag-seed’s deliberate discussion of theatre’s artifice and transience contravenes Shakespeare’s implicit

inspection, aligning with the hypotext’s perspective but extrapolating on the notion through Atwood’s

postmodern lens. Atwood reimagines Prospero through Felix in textual conversation with the genesis text, as

the stage director views plays as deceit through the asyndeton that ‘if the words are not perfect...the spell fails’,

accentuating the illusionary nature of texts and aligning with Shakespeare’s view. Atwood mirrors

Shakespeare's Jacobean exploration of theatre as an artifice, demonstrating its enduring transience as a

verisimilitudinous 'world of illusions'. She provides a more explicit diacopic summation of theatre’s purpose

being to draw ‘the collective indrawn breath, the collective sigh’, as texts invite audiences into illusory

experiences that are deceptive. However, her postmodern perspective engenders a demonstration of growing

deceit in theatre, incorporating multimodal elements such as rap songs and video montages, employing a

postmodern convention of intertextuality, to highlight the evolving facade of contemporary theatre to invite a

suspension of disbelief. Atwood responds to Shakespeare’s assay on metatheatricality through a postmodern

extrapolation that highlights the growing illusion of texts.

The Tempest further promulgates for forgiveness against the corrupting and consuming desire for vengeance in

accordance with Jacobean Divine order, colliding with Hag-Seed’s individualist and secularist perspective.

Shakespeare foregrounds Prospero's desire for revenge by apotheosising him as the metaphorical 'God o' the

Island', identifying him as a Providential agent of divine retribution that concomitantly highlights the motif of

'the island' as the demesne for his planned vengeance against Antonio for his usurpation of the Dukeship of

Milan. However, Shakespeare advocates for a restoration to the Great Chain of Being and natural order through

Prospero’s acknowledgement of vengeance as a symbolic ‘thing of darkness’. This realisation and the

subsequent journey for moral redemption is evident in Prospero’s initial mistreatment of Caliban as a ‘born

devil’ on whom ‘nurture can never stick’ being juxtaposed with allowing Caliban ‘to have my pardon’. Alonso

similarly recognises his misdeeds as ‘monstrous, monstrous’, with the epizeuxis accentuating the vehemence of

guilt and subsequent request for forgiveness from Prospero to ‘pardon me my wrongs’. Shakespeare condemns

the consuming desire for vengeance and power, proselytising the restoration to Jacobean Christian values of

redemption and forgiveness.

Hag-Seed’s purpose as a reverential pastiche facilitates the resonating notion of vengeance and power as agents

of corruption, but Atwood’s individualistic perspective collides with the genesis text. Her departure from

Shakespeare’s Providential values promulgates a secularist view, whereby individual cognition effectuates

Felix’s self-serving vengeance and retribution. Felix’s alignment with Prospero manifests itself through the

metaleptic transposition of their names and shared desire for vengeance, but Atwood diverts from the hypotext’s

values of forgiveness for her individualist perspective. The adaptation into a novel enables an exploration of

individualism through Felix’s internal heterodiegetic narration, providing psychological insight into the

corrupting desire for revenge through its synesthetic description as something that ‘tastes like steak, rare’. The

internal monologues also highlight Atwood’s individualist outlook by substituting the hypotext’s redemptive arc

with unbridled vengeance, recontextualising Jacobean values for a self-serving morality, as Felix seeks to

bargain in idiomatically “balancing the scales” rather than forgive. He further revels in Tony having ‘no

leverage, no power platform...no longer among those who matter’, as the anaphoric repetition draws dichotomic

attention to Tony’s loss and Felix’s victory rather than the didactic forgiveness Shakespeare portrays. While

Shakespeare’s Jacobean value systems shape his advocacy for forgiveness, its textual conversation highlights its

dissonance with Atwood’s individualistic, secularist outlook in Hag-Seed.

The Role of Texts as Prisons - backup ideas

The Tempest and Hag-Seed represent texts and art as vessels of physical and psychological imprisonment, but

Atwood’s humanist and individualist reinterpretations collides with Shakespeare’s colonial and ecclesiastical

depiction of texts as agents of fulfilment. Prospero’s self-imposed imprisonment on the island concomitantly

enables his exercise of power, symbolised through his ‘magic garment’ and spellbooks, as he seeks to exact

control as a divine agent of retribution. Caliban’s aside expresses his fear of Prospero’s power, stating that ‘his

art of such power’ on the symbolic prison of the island is Prospero’s vessel for self-fulfilment. While he initially

revels in enjoying absolute power within his prison through the prideful anaphora of ‘My island domain. My

place of exile. My penance. My theatre’, Shakespeare subtly condemns individualist agents of morality, instead

extolling the implementation of power and retribution as being carried out only by divine entities. The didactic

restoration to Jacobean divine order reinforces the text as a retributive prison for Prospero’s crime of

self-indulgence, as he pleads to the audience in his self-reflexive soliloquy to ‘let your indulgence set me free’,

a facet of Shakespeare’s engagement with metafiction in his final play where he condemns individual fulfilment

through texts and art by condemning Prospero to a metafictive prison within The Tempest.

In its conversation with The Tempest, Hag-Seed’s individualist and humanist outlook portrays texts as methods

of reconciliation, serving as prisons individuals must seek freedom from through its intertextual reinterpretation

of the hypotext. Atwood reimagines Prospero’s metaphorical ‘island prison’ through the physical prison in the

Fletcher County Correctional Centre, wherein the intertextual connection with The Tempest is intensified in its

ideological mirroring, as Felix’s staging of the play within the prison serves as an avenue to indulge in power

and control. However, through Atwood and Felix’s conversation with The Tempest, the composer recalibrates

the nature and role of texts as prisons as not only individualistically indulgent, but as a means to reconcile loss

and escape psychological prisons. Felix’s self-imposed retribution through the ‘ghost’ of Miranda underscores

his psychological imprisonment and reflects Atwood’s advocacy for an individualist and secularist morality that

repudiates Shakespeare’s restoration to ecclesastical natural order. Atwood presents Felix’s interactions with

The Tempest as a vessel for reconciliation rather than indulgence, allowing him metaphorically ‘break out of

your cell’ in his interior monologue. Thus, Atwood retrieves a humanist depiction of Prospero rather than a

patriarchal tyrant and proto-coloniser, promulgating individualist characterial autonomy in breaking out of his

psychological cell instead of a plea to the audience. Hag-Seed forms intertextual connections with

Shakespeare’s dissertation on the role of texts as prisons for indulgence, overturning this notion through

Atwood’s individualist and humanist outlook, depicting texts as methods of reconciliation.

If Question is ON FORM AND STYLE

- Paragraphs 1 and 2

- Mostly the same - talk about theater allowing for dialogic interactions with audience

- Atwood’s postmodern pastiche is a stylistic feature allowing her to reflect on form

- Paragraphs 3 and 4

- Theatrical conventions drawing upon Aristotelian didacticism, thus along with context,

influencing reconciliation at the end

- Atwood - just focus more on the novel allowing for individual character study

If Question is ON CONTEXT

- Paragraphs 1 and 2

- Shakespeare - focus on personal context, last play, reflecting on literary milieu, implicit

- Atwood - postmodern deconstruction and extrapolation of form, intertextuality, and digitisation

of theatre through multimodality

- Paragraphs 3 and 4

- Perfecto

Module B General Thesis: suppression of individuality leads to greater recognition of realities and the truth

Body Paragraph 1 - suppression of individuality by gender conventions leads to pursuit of truth in the

form of individuation and self-actualisation

Nora’s journey of individuation and self-actualisation in A Doll’s House is instigated by rigid social

expectations, as her immutable pursuit for independence presents a universal journey that strengthens the

enduring nature of Ibsen’s work. Nora’s infantilisation at the hands of her husband, Torvald, is a microcosmic

representation of the patriarchal hegemonisation that permeated 19th century Europe’s cultural zeitgeist and

catalyses her arc of self-actualisation. Her intellect is belittled through euphemistic nicknames such as

‘feather-brain’ and ‘little squirrel’, that not only reflect the normalised degradation of women in her milieu, but

dismiss her individuality and deny her agency. Nora’s dehumanisation catalyses the realisation that she is a

subservient possession to the men subjugating her, a notion accentuated by Torvald’s alliterative

acknowledgement of her as ‘Daddy’s Daughter’. Nora’s consequent self-recognition is evident in the metonymy

of being ‘passed from my father’s hands into yours’, and arises from a detachment from social expectations as

Torvald’s symbolic and eponymous ‘doll’, effectuating a cognizant awakening of individuation while

contravening her objectification. Nora’s repudiation of Torvald’s aphoristic ‘first and foremost, you’re a wife a

mother’ is asserted with the statement that ‘first I’m a human being’, reflecting Ibsen’s Humanist beliefs which

manifest textually through a universal human struggle for independence inherently iconoclastic. The oppressive

patriarchy and disempowerment of women of 19th century Europe engender Nora’s journey of

self-actualisation and recognition, a human struggle transcending Ibsen’s contextual paradigms into a universal

tale. Words: 235

Body Paragraph 2 - suppression of individuality within marriages reveal superficial notions of love

A Doll’s House’s realist dramatic style facilitates a critique on the inhibition of individuality engendering

superficial notions of love within marriages. Ibsen’s realist plot is driven by the characters’ cognition and this

stylistic element is depicted through Nora and Torvald’s marriage, wherein love is a constructed artifice that is

performed rather than expressed. Nora presents a facade to Torvald in her performance as a wife, as the

epistrophe where she seeks to ‘dance for him, dress for him, play for him’ reinforces the superficiality of their

marriage and the sacrifice of her self-determination due to her subservience. The closed space style of the play

being set largely in one room emphasises Nora’s confinement and subservience, while Ibsen utilises doors as a

pivotal motif to the play’s orientation, a facet of his performative dramaturgy that communicates the physical

and emotional divisions between the two as a result of repressed individuality. The Christmas tree on the stage

serves as a simulacric symbol for Nora’s facadical beauty and peace, paralleling the notion that both ‘must be

beautiful’ and be decorated for those that look at them, regardless of the repressed truths that lie within. Ibsen

suggests that marriages that inhibit individuality are prone to failure, a deterioration that culminates in Nora’s

acknowledgement that she has been metaphorically ‘performing tricks’ for Torvald, and has ‘other obligations,

just as sacred...to myself’, as Nora’s suppressed agency results in her recognition and termination of her

artificial love with Torvald. Linking sentence Words: 243

Body Paragraph 3 - a morally absolute society’s repression of individuality ultimately results in a morally

relativistic pursuit of independence and rejection or moral absolutism

Ibsen presents the universal and humanist pursuit of independence as a morally relativistic inevitability within a

morally absolute society that rejects individuality, instead promulgating individual autonomy. Ibsen’s

condemnation of 19th-century ecclesiastical deontology is revealed through his humanist advocacy of

individuality and self-determination within a morally absolute society, presented through Nora and Torvald’s

marriage. The morally absolute outlook of Torvald’s milieu in its patriarchal dehumanisation of women

embodies itself in Nora’s referral as the zoomorphic ‘songbird’, consequently cementing her position as the

subordinate doll-wife within the play and inhibiting her agency. Torvald upholds Norwegian society’s rigid

values and his inability to accept Nora’s individualism is his downfall, as his statement that ‘no man would

sacrifice his honour for the one he loves’ foreshadows his ideological incongruency with Nora’s relativist

attainment of agency. This clash between social expectations and repressed individuality inevitably result in her

disobedience, evident through the theatrical motif of the macaroons. Ibsen promulgates the expression of

individuality as a rejection of a morally absolute society, as Nora’s dichotomous language reveals her

recognition and must ‘decide which is right - society or I’. This culminates in the stichomythic exchange where

the absolutist values of 19th century Europe in limiting women’s freedoms result in Torvald's obstinacy to 'not

understand' Nora's relativist pursuit of independence, justifying why she 'must leave' after her cognizant

awakening and ends their marriage. The cardinal conflict between the individual and society within A Doll’s

House advocate Nora’s morally relativist views on self-determination clashing with Torvald and his society’s

morally absolute worldview. Words: 253

Backup Paragraph - Financial Autonomy

Ibsen’s exploration of independence translates to financial autonomy and subsequent self-fulfilment, with the

depicted struggle for money reflecting the enduring and universal struggle for individual volition. Throughout

the play, money symbolises independence by providing power and increasing self-worth. It serves as a sign of

rebellion against convention for Nora, as wives at her time were not legally allowed to borrow money without

their husband’s consent. In Nora’s journey for independence through self-actualisation, money serves as a

means for her to recognise herself as being equal to a man. This motif is reinstated to highlight the gender

inequalities present during Ibsen’s time, as Nora’s independent financial dealings making her feel ‘like being a

man’, and proclaiming to Mrs Linde, ‘you know, I was almost no different to a man’. Nora’s ability to earn and

handle money represents her ability to operate outside of Torvald’s influence, and is a key step in her process of

individuation. (Nora concedes: “just as you say, Torvald.” Torvald, not wanting to see her sulk, gives her

more money. She is thrilled and thanks him enthusiastically. → highlights Torvald’s view on Nora as

someone to be manipulated, but instead it is Nora’s cognizance that manipulates Torvald and his

predictability in denying Nora her individuality) Torvald himself is oblivious to these actions, primarily due

to the hostile response that would ensue should the deed be revealed, exemplary of the ingrained superiority

complex held by men. He refers to Nora as a ‘spend-thrift’, an ironic statement that reinforces Nora’s ability to

hide her dealings and lending credence to her intellect. Her plans to pay off the debt on her own volition provide

self-fulfilment, announcing her desired freedom in the chiasmus ‘Free. To be free, absolutely free’. Financial

autonomy is integral in instigating and facilitating Nora’s journey to independence, concomitantly leading to a

greater sense of self-fulfilment through her individualism.

Extra Mod B Quote Bank

- Women had no right to vote, could not hold political office, and weren’t entitled to control their own

property

- ‘There is hardly a literary work that means to women’s liberation practically al cultures all over the

world as impacted in A Doll’s House’ - Arburium Iseni

- repressed woman who finally frees herself from unbearable personal and social restrictions - Andrew

and Heebon-Park Finch

- The collapse of a middle-class marriage is regarded as innovative and daring due to its emphasis on

psychological conflicts rather than external action

- ‘The bourgeoise individuals sell their love in favour of a marriage without love’

- Emancipation of the individual through Nora

Free. To be free, absolutely free. Epiphora - Repetition

Nora longs for freedom.

Something glorious is going to happen.

Ironic foreshadowing

Foreshadows tumultuous events about to unfold → but new complications arise that, rather that resolving the issue, further deteriorate the domestic marriage in this problem play - lack of predictability shows lack of agency and control over Nora over her life and relationships

From now on, forget happiness. Now it’s just about saving the remains, the

wreckage, the appearance. Tricolon

These words are important also because they constitute Torvald’s actual reaction to Nora’s crime, in contrast to the gallant reaction that she expects. Rather than sacrifice his own reputation for Nora’s, Torvald seeks to ensure that his reputation remains unsullied. His desire to hide—rather than to take responsibility—for Nora’s forgery proves Torvald to be the opposite of the strong, noble man that he purports himself to be before Nora and society.

This notion is also reflected in Linde’s lack of purpose in having ‘no one to live for’, thereby equating a lack

of agency due to repressive zeitgeists engendering subservience. ‘My greatest pleasure, my only pleasure...Where’s the satisfaction in working for oneself?’

Three-act structure - more economical Structural technique → departs from five-act structure, new dramatist style, more economical - Modernism → subverting from traditional 5 act structure

anaphoric imperative tone “I must think… I must decide”

Shows agency and autonomy The ending, which doesn’t have reconciliation like in the romanticist era, shows their separation, is a departure from convention and exemplary of Ibsen’s realist and modernist portrayal of individuals.

Tarantella Dance - ‘dancing as though your life

depended on it.’ - theatrical symbol

Highlights facadical performances as a wife Use in paragraph 2 if form question

‘No principle, no morality, no religion, no sense of duty’ - Anaphoric repetition

Torvald, enraged at discovering the nature of Nora’s deception with regards to his trip and subsequent treatment, laments and berates Nora, hyperbolising her deed as indicative of her inability to be entrusted with the care of their children.

But our home has been nothing but a playroom. I have been your doll- wife, just as at home I was papa's

doll-child; and here the children have been my dolls.’

Realism - domestic issues and settings. Centering around a marriage and realistic characters. Marriage has been superficial - their love was a construct where Nora was subservient. Gender and relationship imbalance. She has been ‘performing’ for the men in her life.

Nora concedes: “just as you say, Torvald.” Torvald, not

wanting to see her sulk, gives her more money. She is thrilled

and thanks him enthusiastically.

Motif

Torvald’s rewards Nora for her obedience; his control of the money gives him power in the marriage, though Nora's obedience also allows her to manipulate him. And, of course, she has already borrowed money once, early in their marriage. So her obedience is somewhat shallow, and seems more a role she is playing, happily, than something she truly believes in.

Money ‘It was a tremendous pleasure to sit there working and earning money. It was like

being a man’

Symbolism and analogy being like a man

Money symbolises independence. Nora’s ability to earn money represents her ability to operate outside of Torvald’s influence. Money symbolises worth and power.

A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spreads disease and infection to every

part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking evil germs.

Visceral, decrepit imagery

If Question is ON FORM AND STYLE

- Paragraph 1

- Focus on realist style → a problem play that focuses on the collapse of a middle-class marriage,

focusing on characterial action and motivations revealed through realist dialogue

- Modernism → subversive play ending breaking conventions through his pioneering style

- Paragraph 2

- Add Tarantella

- Focus more on realism → his style breaks conventions, supplements the iconoclastic pursuit of

independence

- Paragraph 3

- Elaborate on the doll-wife, doll-child → relating to the suppressing of individuality as expressed

through the confining nature of the play’s closed space style

If Question is ON CONTEXT

- Paragraph 1

- Mostly fine → focus more on iconoclastic independence - rejection of social conventions for

pursuit of independence

- Paragraph 2

- Focus on modernism and his subversion of literary convention as personal context

- The collapse of a middle-class marriage is regarded as innovative and daring due to its emphasis

on psychological conflicts rather than external action

- ‘The bourgeoise individuals sell their love in favour of a marriage without love’

- Emancipation of the individual through Nora

- Paragraph 3

- Women had no right to vote, could not hold political office, and weren’t entitled to control their

own property

- Include that as relativist patriarchy and focus more on that

Module C

Food for Thought

An army of chafers surrounded me, each lending itself to the cacophony of scents that seeped their way into my nostrils. Each pot was its own culture, a product of a proud people and a rich history, now served in a vast array of foods at my community’s annual multicultural benefit. The sheer amount of food meant that I could never indulge in all the offerings, but only dabble in a few. I saw pockets of people crowding around their cuisines, engaging in animated discussions in foreign tongues I could not understand. What I did understand was these tongues, these chafers were mere fragments like a reality that lay outside the prison everyone, myself included, resided in. I was a prisoner to my capacity to consume food from every pot there, just like I was and always will be a prisoner to the words I spoke. To master all tongues, to empty every chafer, is an impossible task, but doing so would unleash a complete reality onto me. Our limited time on this planet, dovetailed with our forgetfulness, means that we only have time to master maybe a few chafers. And so the secrets of reality hidden beneath pot lids, teasing me with whiffs of fragrances an alien conversations. My own words open up a few chafers, fragments of a reality I can perceive, describe, and classify. My words are a cell holding me captive, unable to revive concepts and ideas hidden in the exotic concoctions within chafers I could never taste. The notion of language constructing an individual’s perception of reality and confining it is known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, the idea of linguistic relativity. It says that my thoughts in English cannot be accurately conceptualised, let alone understood, by someone who speaks another language. I am privileged and lucky to have had a multilingual, multicultural upbringing. My knowledge of Hindi, Arabic, Urdu, and of course, English, have allowed me to express more than one language can provide. Colour, sound, object, emotion; each language has allowed me to open a new chafer and get more of a taste of reality.. It has also, however, highlighted the very nature of language as confining reality; words and concepts that cannot be translated accurately. Words and concepts I cannot communicate to you in English. At my community buffet, my mother took a bite out of an exotic dish I cannot recall, and left me the duty of finishing it. This food was जठूा , as both my mother and I communicated to each other. There is no direct translation to this Hindi word, pronounced (jūṭhā), in English. It refers to any item that has been used or touched by another person’s mouth, and even this translation does not encapsulate the concept accurately. The concept, which has no etymological or cultural origins in English, is forever buried by the language to its people, another fabric in the tapestry of reality hidden away, waiting to be unlocked sometime later, if ever. Even my understanding of the environments I reside in are limited to the linguistic parameters I can indulge in. To me, the sky is blue. To a unilingual individual versed exclusively in Russian, the sky is not simply blue because blue as a term encompassing its various shades does not exist in Russian. To them, a clear sky is either

goulboy (light blue) or siniy (dark blue). Yet to me, the sky will always be just blue because that is the understanding of colour through English and the other languages I speak. The words I know shape I how view the world, they mould my perspective and confine it to rules and restrictions in my expression. Take the Arabic word ,تقبرني for example. It is pronounced To’oborni, and also has no direct translation in English, with the most accurate being ‘I love you so much I would rather die and bury you before I would lose you’. This elaborate butchering of the word’s definition loses its intricacy and beauty in English, devolving to a cryptic and disturbing maxim rather than the expression of unrequited love it is intended to be. Other languages do not convey this intense emotion, in the same way that Arabic has no word for जठूा . Each language, in reflecting its people, provides fragments of reality exclusive to the culture and traditions of its people. Language railroads the human experience, its orphic stranglehold on reality imprisoning the expression of existence. It constructs my prison, and yours, varying in size and shape, but confining us to our experience of reality nonetheless. There is an escape from this prison, a way to uncover more of reality. I made a promise to myself that day at the community buffet. I promised myself that I would try my hardest to open new chafers, to master new languages and communicate more of the reality I was existing within. Slowly, through daily reminders from DuoLingo and hours of frustration, I now look to open more chafers and enjoy the true wonders of human civilisation.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Type Discursive

Purpose To express insight into the powerful role of language in shaping our perception of reality.

Audience People with unilingual backgrounds and an interest in language

Main idea How language shapes our reality - The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis - Draws upon A Home in Fiction and Orwell’s PATEL - Idea of the vastness of language and the origin of words

P A R A G R A

Main idea The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Device 1 Extended metaphor of the chafers and buffet (from Geraldine Brooks’ extended metaphor of ‘I swim in a sea of words’/ ‘swim so far, dive so deep’) → reframed Brooks' metaphor, which explores the vastness of language, I extrapolate on this through my metaphor, which shows the variety and multitude of languages

- References to etymology also similar

Device 2 Personal anecdote and recounts to effectuate this journey of self-reflection and exploration is a personal appropriation of Brooks’ attendance at a maths lecture

Device 3 Maybe mention the use of prisons as a motif as explored in Mod

P H

A - ‘I am a prisoner to the words I speak’ Personal anecdote and personal voice from cultural background

Our Digital Cave of Lies

We are surrounded by the walls of a cave, perpetual darkness where we must light our own torches to navigate our way through our measly existence. Plato spoke of this Cave in the Republic, showing the world how malleable the truth really is. And here we are, living in this cave once again. Our cave is not one of dripping crevices and rocky terrain, but digital caves and spaces that forever appease our confirmation biases, because the truth doesn’t matter, only the truth you want to believe. The only truth we see are the shadows that dance on our walls, dark echoes of an existence outside our cave, an existence forever elusive, for we are chained to walls and all denizens are draped in darkness within this cave. This cave. This existence. We lie, chained to our screens, watching a masquerade of fake plastic men and women weaponise the very words we use for communication for their agendas and diatribe. They offer us our truths and perform their shadow dances. They have armed the English language, and perverted words. Words. A mesh of lines and dots that can raise armies and ignite the fire of revolutions, now at the mercy of partisan journalism. Partisan journalism has been a staple of human civilisation since its inception, but has seen unparalleled levels of proliferation in the past decade in the construction of our digital cave of lies with new puppeteers. These fake plastic men and women bombard our screens, our shadows, with images of tragedy and bloodshed. They distort suffering into an instrument of division, parting the sea of people in our cave to the left and right. Soon, these are but two distinct peoples, controlled by their own puppeteers. As time passes, speciation occurs, for the language they once spoke and bastardised by their puppeteers for their partisan agendas, now has differentiated into two distinct entities. Unity has lost its meaning, and so have words. The denizens of the cave on the right side of the cave are ‘Fascists’ and ‘Nationalists’, and those on the left are ‘Communists’ and ‘Anarchists’. We don’t know what these words mean but they have been drilled into us by the fake plastic news anchors that drill them into our heads. Thus, the partisan media controls its tight grip on our digital cave of lies, dividing us into two chambers where are our words only circulate within our section of our existence. They echo in these chambers and drown out any dissent, whether it be on forums or social media, for discourse is surely overrated. I am always right, and you are always wrong. Then slowly, the truth withers away, etched into a faded memory as a relic of the past, replaced by the chains of disillusioned cavemen promulgating a truth that doesn’t exist. They will relay buzzwords and catchphrases, drilling them to your head, given to them by the fake plastic men and women who are here to craft their truth and think for you. Perhaps we should be fearful of our current truth. However, Plato narrated that someone will inextricably escape our cave of lies, and see the existence above.

There are a prestigious few who do, but we do not call them ‘enlightened’. We call them ‘whistleblowers’ if we are feeling generous, ‘partisan hacks’ or ‘treasonous traitors’ if we are genuine. Words and labels shaping reality, shaped by fake plastic men and women on our screens. These supposed traitors die a digital death’ faded into obscurity, engulfed in vitriolic diatribe, discarded and disreputed. Gradually, with the passing of each enlightened individual, we dig deeper into our cave of lies. Gradually, it happens. The truth dies - forever.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Type Discursive

Purpose To explore and shape a new perspective on the manipulation of language within partisan media in the Digital Age as a reimagination of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

Audience Consumers of journalism on social media and online.

Main idea - Manipulation of language to spread misinformation and result in greater political polarisation

- Shared concern on debasement and perversion of language in political journalism with George Orwell’s PATEL

- Extended metaphor and allegory of the Cave → reimagining Plato’s The Republic

P A R A G R A P H

Main idea The deterioration of truth as a result of the partisan manipulation of language

Device 1 Extended metaphor → Geraldine Brooks’ ‘sea of words’ - Vastness of language, I reappropriate this by

reimagining Plato’s Cave from The Republic in the Digital age through ‘our digital cave of lies’

- Lack of authenticity of journalists through motif of ‘fake plastic’ people

- Reimagining ‘shadows on our walls’ as our screens - ‘Not a cave of dripping crevices or rocky caverns’ - Extrapolate on hypotext by showcasing polarisation →

double entendre on left and right as partisan affiliations

Device 2 Manipulation of the English language → Orwell - Intertextuality through references and examples where

words have lost their meaning ‘fascists’, ‘communists’, etc → The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. - Orwell

- Symbolism - the english language as an ‘instrument’ - I extrapolate on this notion by presenting it as a ‘weapon’

- ‘What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, not the other way around’

Device 3 Historical allusions similar to Orwell and Brooks (elaborate on this if you include it later)

None but the Lonely Hearts

Picture a woman. She’s a woman like any other. A face you’ve seen a thousand times before and a smile you’ve seen a thousand times before, both posing in front of natural scenery you’ve seen the likes of a thousand times before. Her face has been cast in time, captured and framed on a small piece of paper close to size A4 - the most common size of paper. Yet despite this commonality, thousands flock from all corners of the globe, braving rolling seas and cavernous mountain to gain just one glimpse of this common woman. She sits in the Louvre, her smile fixed in time, unwavered and unfazed by the heavily-equipped guards that stave off desperate connoisseurs. To the eye, she’s a woman like any other on canvas like any other in a frame like any other, but you know better. She’s a story, a symbol of triumph and perfection. She’s the magnum opus of a legend, the labour of unparalleled virtuosity. To the naked eye she is nothing special - she’s just Mona Lisa, a painting. But you know better.

Picture a man. He’s a man like any other. A common face laced with an unkempt moustache dripping the sweat of a usual August summer. His eyes are squinting in surrender to the blazing sun and the deluge of perspiration marching towards the ground. The suit he dons is an average suit on a stocky man of average height. He stands behind a podium, looking at a crowd of thousands. He’s a man like any other to the eyes, but your heart knows better. He is your symbol of hope, the leader of your cause. His mouth moves like any other man when he speaks, but his words pierce your heart. They speak to the pain you’ve stashed away for all these years. They are a hand reaching out to you in understanding your suffering, recognising your pain. They speak to an anger slowly stirring within you all this time, an anger close to boiling point under the Washington sun. Words that would garner nods of approval by high school teachers now move you and the millions holding on to each syllable, because they are beyond words to you - they are art of the highest calibre, akin to the likes of Michelangelo, and Da Vinci; immortal to the dripping poison that is time. He’s a revolutionary, a gallant warrior against prejudice and oppression. You know when he says that he dreams, he dreams with you for a better future where none from your creed will face the indigence or marginalisation you did.

To the eye he is just another African-American man, but you know better. You know he is Martin Luther King Jr, an artist etching each and every single one of his words into the annals of history.

Picture a dying old man. His frail limbs lie under a tapestry of tubes pumping him with the sand of an hourglass awaiting its final turn. He knocks on heaven’s door like thousands - nay, millions - before him. The theatre of screens showering him with graphs and numbers only remind him of this, honing in the only certainty of life ; death. The rolling waves of his wrinkled blanket his bones like any other old man, and there is nothing special about his grey hair. It fades into the white hospital bed like many old men before him. To your eyes he is like any other dying old man, but you know better. You know those bony hands clasp within them years of turmoil, once capable of moving mountains if it meant his loved ones could sleep full-bellied. You know his thousand-yard stare to the ceiling is not an ailment arising from age and his impending mortality, but rather of defeat. Eyes that accepted defeat when witnessing the depravity of humanity, eyes that went from herding cattle everyday to being herded themselves in man-made slaughterhouses and the pertinent scent of a cold, steel spray of death. You know the ridges of scars that scatter his paling skin are the product of unmatched courage and suffering to ensure your youthful skin never is inflicted by such wounds. Your eyes see the shadow of man your heart knows he is, the man who overcame any obstacle for his children and theirs to come. A man who would trek the deserts of Arabia or raise a revolution on the steps of Washington if it was for you. Your eyes see nothing but another dying old man, just like all those before him, but you know better. You know he is a hero whose life has been marred with nothing but grief and pain. To your heart, he’s your grandfather and every moment is vital and fleeting before that hourglass bids its farewell.

Picture a pale, blue dot. It is a pale blue dot like any other, for there are millions just like it, most of which you will never see or know about. Its size is fairly average, its blueness mundane. It is a blue in the midst of a vast, unmoving blackness. It is a common dot in a galaxy like any other , within a local group like any other. A smaller white speck circles it in worship, but the pale blue dot orbits in subservience to another, larger yellow dot. This is a pale, blue dot to your eyes but your heart sees the truth. On this pale blue dot sits everything. Every baby’s cry, every mother’s warm smile, every lover’s embrace, every raising speech from a revolutionary, every valiant actor bidding his farewell from life, every artist and the labour of his love, every genius, every simpleton, every murderer, conman, every saint and sinner, and every man, woman, and child. They have all been within this pale blue dot.

To your eyes, this is just another pale blue dot that seems to be unchanging, fixed in an intricate dance for eternity. But your heart can see rightly what your eyes can not. This treasure is being raided and plundered, its life slowly dwindling. Your heart aches because something must be done. From where you are, this is just another pale, blue dot, but you know better. Reflection

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Type Imaginative

Purpose To share an aesthetic, emotional vision of contextualism that explores the value of connections and insight often overlooked for empiricism.

Audience Proponents and defenders of empiricism and those with an interest in history.

Main idea Contextualism → things should be understood and appreciated within their context, not just empirically

P A R A G R A P H

Main idea Contextualism - Repetition and motif of seemingly ‘common’ objects

and people ‘like any other’, but this constantly juxtaposed by showing their uniqueness

- Draws the audience in through intertextual and historical allusions that utilise the audience’s knowledge, as well as creating fictional personas through a second-person perspective similar to Kate Tempest’s Picture a Vacuum

- Natural and earthly imagery of the old man’s body foreshadows the section on the pale blue dot → drawing upon Tempest ‘its contours’ and personification of the planet → here I create an inextricable link between the individual and collective human experience hoho kms

- ‘You know better’

Device 1 ‘Picture a…’ introductory imperative tone and second-person narrative voice draw upon Kate Tempest’s Picture a Vacuum → frames the narrative around the central figure of each section and invites the audience to engage with the text more meaningfully

Device 2 Quadriptych Structure - is an extrapolation of Gwen Harwood’s Father and Son,

which has a diptych structure - each fragment of the narrative works independently, but

they contain links like Father and Son (the ‘barn owl’ motif) and structure of each section mimics others

- The final section, which contains a global, macro-level

examination of the earth, is the culmination of this journey and includes references to all previous three sections, thus connecting the sections through their shared promulgation of contextualism

- This structure, through its fragments but connectivity reinforces the universality and expanse of contextualism, whereby context should always be applied to objects, people, relationships, and even global phenomenons

Device 3 Intertextuality The expanse and different fragments accumulate to the metaphorical ‘pale, blue dot’ (Carl Sagan intertextual reference) that highlights the universality and expanse of the idea and reinforces it.