Introduction
Level 3, Year 1 (2004/2005)
Level 2, Year 2 (2003/2004)
Level 2, Year 1 (2002/2003)
Level 1, Year 2 (2001/2002)
Level 1, Year 1 (2000/2001)
|
 |
 |
Romanticism to Modernism - English Literature 1830 - 1930
| 1 |
Provide a close textual analysis of Frankenstein (chapter 18, lines 199-256) by Mary Shelley |
73% |
Planning and organisation of material:
Use of sources:
Analysis:
Presentation:
Overall comments:
This was a good piece of work. You produce a detailed and persuasive account of this passage which successfully integrates shrewd textual analysis with a firm grasp of the wider themes of the novel. I thought you also selected an entirely appropriate passage for an excercise of this kind, and you handled its prose and poetic components with equal assuredness. If I was to quibble this piece, I support I might comment that it would [have] benefitted from the occasional secondary reference; you also make the odd observation that required further elaboration (such as the point about the novel's lament for the passing of the neo-classical age), and given the generally high standard of expression your conclusion appears to be rather abrupt. Nevertheless, this was an impressive first assignment.
|
|
| 2 |
The country is always regarded as a better place than the city in literature of this period. Do you agree? Answer with reference to two or more relevant texts. |
65% |
Planning and organisation of material:
Use of sources:
Analysis:
Presentation:
Overall comments:
You make some interesting points here, and your discussion on 'Great Expectations' is both detailed and nuanced. There are, however, problems with the structure of the piece. Your use of 'Hard Times' seems out of place here, given that the city both texts discuss is London. It also was not an appropriate text to cite in the introduction, as you point out it's a world about northern industrialisation, whereas your first text, 'The Prelude', is a vision of pre-industrial England and Europe. I did also feel that your discussion of Wordsworth's poem lacked your usual precision and rigour. I did broadly concur with your overall conclusion on these works, but the essay would have been improved with a more substantial engagement with secondary sources in the text.
|
|
| 3 |
Should we regard Modernism as an optimistic or pessimistic movement? Answer with reference to two or more relevant texts. |
74% |
Planning and organisation of material:
Use of sources:
Analysis:
Presentation:
Overall comments:
I thought this was a good essay. You organise your argument well, support the thesis with a judicious selection of examples from primary texts and quotations from secondary sources, and the piece for the most part of stylistically assured. There's just the occasional slip in usage (have a look again at your use of prolepsis on p2). You do produce a strong sense of your own argument here, but I still feel there is scope for some more explicit engagement with the views of the critics you cite. Nevertheless this was a strong conclusion to the course.
|
|