Now, this paper, like the first, is split into two. To fully understand alot of the similarities, I'll just tell you to read part 1.
Paper 2 section A is reading culture poetry. The poems are in a book made just for the exams, containing two clusters of poetry for the paper 2 and a whole amount for the literature poems. As you can guess, these poems are
Sadly, readinng these poems is not the entire test; we also have to decide why the poems are effective with their language and structure and presentation. Stiiill not sure how presentation doesn't actually include structure. Even less sure how good their devices are, considering one is written to clearly depict a heavy scottish accent that I'd actually allow an american to ask subtitles for and another just switches to a foreign language in the middle, only showing you how to pronounce it and not what it actually says.
The linguistic techniques they apparently use are things such as metaphors and personification. The more rediculous include variations of repetition. Apparently things repeated three times is worthy of it's own rule. Acutally, that is true. I use it often. Nevermind, rule of three makes sense.
Repeating letters is also common. Assonance is when the sound in a word is repeated, though you're thoroughly tough to know without it spoken, which is heresy in exams. Then comes a specific form called sibilance, which is when the sound repeated is an S sound, which is seriously stupid, you should know. S sounds shouldn't show up so often, and it's just a wonder that T sounds aren't the repeated think that talking about obtains marks for. Though, thinking about it, turbulence is taken, thus invalidating it.
I wish I could say more about it, I really do... Probably why I'm better at writing sections than reading sections.
Then comes my overall best section, Paper 2 section B, writing to describe, inform or explain. These don't take any usual formats, being leaflets or articles, or even being a plain and simple piece of fiction. I like to describe, as I always get marked well for it.
I never bother with the last two, so I shall not explain them. Instead, I shalt inform you of how to describe. In short, be dramatic. This works best, as it grips far easier than other genres. You could do humorous, but you'd have to make sure you include techniques in it.
Erm... thinking of how to describe -would you believe- describing... Hey, you know books? Good books, the kind you're not told to study in school. Yeah, those! Think of the most descriptive passage. The passage that takes up most probably several pages, but would never be shown in the film due to the fact it's talking about a still image, and films are moving pictures. The things that are best shown as an event-free camera panning across and up, and maybe an owl flies past.
...Shut up! Let's see you think of a decent example not written by J.K Rowling.
...SHUT UP!!
Henyway, write that. Well, sort of. Write in that sort of style, but about whatever you're told to write about. If need be, write as if you've forgotten the name of what you're talking about, and it's on the tip of your tongue. But don't use second person. And no clicking in an exam. I've learned that it's just as bad as talking.
So, if you make sure to write this description like that, with a good number of metaphors and repetition, you'll be fine.
Don't Panic
No comments:
Post a Comment