One
of the main targets that I have given after listening to your orals is to analyse rather than explain, especially when it comes to discussing the stylistic
features used by Shakespeare in the extract given. So what is the difference
between explaining and analysing?
Explaining essentially involves
decoding something for the listener/reader - it is a way of clarifying or
suggesting what is meant by the writer. It is an important skill because it
demonstrates your understanding whilst taking the listener/reader beyond the
literal lines themselves. But explaining only gets us so far. If we stick to
explaining, then our discussion of the text will remain quite superficial and
straightforward. So, whilst your discussion of a key line might start with some
explanation, the aim is to move quickly into analysis. Analysis involves exploring, probing, questioning and then
suggesting interpretations as a result. It takes the reader/listener much
deeper below the surface of the lines. Most importantly, whereas explaining
demonstrates that you understand, analysis demonstrates that you can think
and actively create meanings. It takes confidence to analyse and good
analysis demands that you fully engage with - and commit to - the text.
Let's
look at an example. There were two key examples of imagery that many of you
commented on in the mock oral - the 'horse' metaphor and the 'armour' simile.
The typical way that many of you handled this was to say something like:
Claudio uses a metaphor when he says
'the body public be a horse whereon the governor doth ride'. What he is saying
is that Angelo, in governing the country, is like a horse rider who is using
his whip on the people, who are seen as the horse in these lines. (This sort of comment
might get you 5 marks.)
So,
you would be credited for correctly identifying these lines as a metaphor, and
your explanation of the metaphor proves you understand it. But to get up to 7,
8, 9 or 10 for Criterion A, you need to be able to go further. Here's an
example of the same lines starting to be analysed rather than explained:
I am going to be looking at law and
justice in this extract. Obviously, Claudio is describing how he feels that the
law is unjust, and he is describing it through a metaphor, saying 'the body
public be a horse whereon the governor doth ride'. He's describing the law as
the rider, or Angelo as the rider, and the body of the horse as the body of the
public and the society which the law is being inflicted on. We could maybe see
the horse as previously unruly, needing to be tamed, when we're talking about
the Duke's power. And this has some symmetry when we think about the rest of
the play, where the law is described as needing to be pruned or cut back by
Escalus, and the Duke who wants tighter control of the
law. (This might get 6 or 7 marks.)
In
this example, we get the sense of the speaker searching for meaning. She is
starting to peel back the language and is trying to work out what Shakespeare
is doing. In this next example, the speaker goes even further by thinking and
reflecting in even more depth about the same lines:
Shakespeare develops the theme of
justice and the law in this extract through the metaphor, ' the body public be
a horse whereon the governor doth ride'. So he's giving us the idea of Angelo
being the rider of the horse and the general public being the horse. This gives the impression that Angelo is
completely in control, he is 'astride' the horse and he's superior to the
public because he's above them. The idea of the horse - the horse represents the people of Vienna. It suggests that by choosing a horse,
they could at any time rear up because horses are quite unpredictable animals
and they're also quite strong. This suggests that the people have power but at
the moment Angelo 'let's it straight feel the spur', suggesting the only way he
really knows how to control people is to use violence, so he's taking quite a
Draconian stance at the beginning. Maybe in terms of horse riding, more
experienced riders can know that they if they treat the animals kindly and
develop a relationship of trust then it can often be more successful so maybe
in this case, because Angelo is so inexperienced as a leader he doesn't yet
know this, that if he develops a relationship of trust with his people he might
better control them. It kind of confirms the point that Angelo is quite inhuman
and he doesn't understand these things;
he takes a very harsh, cold stance and can't comprehend that maybe
treating people gently is a way to control them better. (This might get 8
or 9 marks.)
No comments:
Post a Comment