12 Advanced Module A, General Feedback

Average: 17.17/20

The Question:

“Why, in short, are we persuaded that we know more than the texts that precede us? The
advantage of our hindsight is compensated for by their robustness, resilience, and
continuing resonance. They speak to, but also beyond, their own moment, anticipating
future affinities and conjuring up not yet imaginable connections.” Rita Felski, ‘Context
Stinks’

To what extent does this statement reflect your understanding the textual conversation
you encountered in your study of Module A, Textual Conversations?

In your response, make close reference to the pair of prescribed text you have studied,
William Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Margaret Atwood’s Hag-Seed.

Congratulations on completing Module A! I am impressed with your preparation and have a few
comments to make in general about the way you met the criteria.

Demonstrates a sophisticated ability to compose a sustained essay that responds to the

When I read Felski’s article earlier this year, I was intrigued by the way that she disputes NESA’s
approach to the comparative study in Module A. Felski argues that reducing texts to themes that
reflect context doesn’t show respect to the text itself, and that thinking we can bring ‘true’
meaning to literature with the benefit of hindsight is presumtuous. She argues that literary works
generate their own robust meaning. She also argues that literuture anticipates us – that it doesn’t
wait passively for us to give it meaning.

There were some interesting responses to the question:

• A few people argued that Shakespeare’s The Tempest is robust and still speaks beyond its
context, but that Atwood’s Hag-Seed is necessary and brings new meaning for a new
context.
• Some argued that Hag-Seed’s engagement with The Tempest showed the continued
resonance of the hypotext – that it showed how well Shakespeare anticipated future
affinities and conjured up not yet imaginable connections.

More often, people picked up on a few keywords and ran with them. Sometimes the only keywords
was ‘resonance’. After a bit of pilot marking, it became obvious that we would have to be generous
with this criterion.

Of the criteria, this was the most concerning:

• NESA are very concerned about the authenticity of responses, and they are unlikely to be
as generous as we have been with you.
• NESA are likely to set an interesting question, and you need to practise integrating the
wording of the question into your responses.
• Very often, the question was addressed in the introduction and then forgotten in the body
paragraphs. This is alarming:
o At the very least, top-and-tail your body paragraphs with topic sentences and
framing sentences that use the language of the question.
o Really, you should be well beyond topping-and-tailing, but plenty of people aren’t
even doing that.
 o If you have ‘use the wording of the question’ or just ‘Q?’ written on your essay, you
can expect your HSC mark to be considerably lower than it is in this task – I am
assuming you just need a reminder and that you will not go into the HSC without
correcting your approach.
• Sometimes – and more than just a few times – people seem to have read the question as
‘to what extent are the texts about the two themes you have prepared for?’
• Evaluative language was generally well used in the introduction but often forgotten in the
body paragraphs.
• Sometimes people used evaluative language but ignored the statement – it’s like saying
“to a great extent, refrigerator”. This won’t be amusing if that’s how we do the HSC.

Explains skilfully how composers are influenced by context, concepts and/or values

Try to be conceptual with your responses and try to keep those concepts broad before you home
in on the issues you have prepared. You might get lucky and get a question like “How are The
Tempest and Hag-Seed both about imprisonment and colonisation?” – we’ll be all set if that
happens. It’s fine to be specific but be broad before you drill down.

Try to progress through a discussion of values and context rather than ticking off a list. The marker
will like a through-line in your essays. You can show them that you are developing your thesis with
a ‘whereas in text A the author does X, in text B …’ structure, or something similar. Sometimes
people write ‘similarly’ or ‘contrastingly’, which is part-way there but relying on the marker to do
some of the work. Sometimes essays were just a case of ‘another value is’, which is not strong.

Discussion of values was often linked to a broader textual conversation. Montaigne got a lot of
publicity in your essays, to the exclusion of other influences. You could mix it up a bit.

Evaluates skilfully the relationship between texts and contexts using detailed textual
references from the prescribed texts

This was the strongest part of the essays. I’d have liked to see more on form and structure before
diving into close analysis. People could have a better grasp of Atwood’s satire, and analysis could
be much better linked to the question.

Composes a perceptive response using language appropriate to audience, purpose and form

Expression was generally clear. They’re really after ‘voice’ in the high range responses – you can
read more literary criticism and emulate the best of it. Try to sound like you’re engaged with the
texts and enjoy discussing literature.

Try not to use big words without showing that you know their meaning. Use them correctly, in
context. When you read back over your work, ask yourself if your Year 10 self would have been
able to work out the meaning of every word, or at least have an educated guess, by reading the
word in context.

There are a few weasel words that persist – showcasing, catylising, the usual suspects. Oh, and
‘dissonates’. They’re not banned, but they’re not going to get you into the Cambridge Companion.

The most confusing expression was in topic sentences and thesis statements. When topic
sentences and thesis statements were clear, they weren’t asnwering the question. It’s better to do
a messy job of answering the quesiton than it is to be clerly off topic. What’s even better, though,
is to elegantly answer the question. We need a lot of practice with this.

Handwriting. Sometimes it’s extensive and illegible. Sometimes it’s brief and neat. We need to hit
that sweet-spot – flowing, legible, copious. Again, we need a lot of practice.