**Higher Level English Paper 2 2012 - Before/After

annettesayz

Wkds wrote: »

Alright paper. Was delighted with the literary genre question and with rich.
Thought the Hamlet questions were difficult enough. I did the corruption one but found it difficult to think of techniques used to convey it.

I did that Hamlet Q aswell, regretted it half way through it was hard..

deathbythelc

As much as I was hoping for Plath to come up... I think it's kind of hilarious that she didn't.

Come on guys, there's nothing you can do about it now. Just move onto the next subject!

RedTexan

Not to be insensitive but delighted with the paper, questions on gvvp, Hamlet and Rich were reasonable and got a load down. Do have some sympathy for those who were left stumped without a poet but I suppose it's a life lesson.

HowAreWe

that feeling when you only study Larkin :cool:

hongalway

Just home lads, crackin stuff altogether!! dont think iv ever laughed as much when the first lad in the exam hall got the paper and then turned over to the rest of us and mimed out 'no plath, no heaney'. one lad left his forehead on the table for 20 minutes, another lad for 10 minutes, i spent about 15 minutes laughin at everyone elses facial expressions when they realised he wasn't messing, they, along with myself, being the ones who only studied ovenhead and heaney of course
For those wondering, Kinsella, Kavanagh, Larkin and Rich came up, GV&V and Literary Genre came up for comparative and Hamlets madness and some theme, which im not sure on, came up for Hamlet

Chuchoter

That was not a nice paper at all!
I liked the literary genre but thought the Hamlet was quite hard. I did the madness one. I saw the word technique in the other question and I was like NOT HAPPENING.

Poetry was all my least favorites too. And people thought I was mad learning 7 poets! I thought the Kinsella question was lovely, Rich one was quite tough though :S

degausserxo

Beautiful, beautiful paper. Hamlet teacher had the questions predicted spot on. I had a funny feeling Kinsella, Larkin and Rich would be on too. Still don't reckon I got an A though.

Bubbleope

If the SEC is by any chance reading this i would like to say a big F*CK YOU! you are all evil sons of b*tches. ): ye'd want to cop onto yerselves. /;

ugghhh fml

Random_Person

Evan93 wrote: »

Bit insensitive no? It's not actually that funny. Yeah people should study 5. But that much work is completely unjustified for the amount marks going for the answer. The minority will only study 5. The majority do not. I'd say study 3 predicted & know a 4th somewhat okay if everything goes arseways.

I completely agree about that much work for only 50 marks but that's the LC. Deal with it. Everyone knows that the LC is unfair and that it needs to change blah blah blah, get over it.

Insensitive? Maybe. But it just goes to show all the people who think they can predict/follow predictions. It doesn't work.

Boland wasn't enough to convince people of this and I doubt this will do anything either so yes, it is funny.

WarZoneBrother

I looked straight at Poetry and seen no Plath, instantly shouted ''Holy f*cking crap'' ... Then laughed ... Unreal that she didn't come up.. I ended up writing a page of pure and utter crap on Rich...

biohaiid

deathbythelc wrote: »

As much as I was hoping for Plath to come up... I think it's kind of hilarious that she didn't.

Come on guys, there's nothing you can do about it now. Just move onto the next subject!

Me too!
People were leaving my exam room crying and I was just thinking, what good is that now?
I was actually quite happy with the paper.
The General Vision and Viewpoint and Hamlet question were awkward as ****, and I answered on the poet I never wrote an essay on before, yet Im happy with how I dealt with it. POSITIVE THINKING PEOPLE!

QueenOfLeon

Random_Person wrote: »

if you were caught out by it, tough. There's 8 poets, 4 come up so if you want to be guaranteed a poet, study 5, not just those "predicted".

I actually find it hilarious :pac:

No need for comments like this, the exam is over so your advice about how many poets to study is pointless. Stressing people out about what they should have done for a previous exam when they have most of their exams left to sit isn't necessary.

Fergus_

I did both parts of the Unseen Poetry by accident, would they give me marks for the best one?

Wilwarin

It was "Shakespeare uses a variety of techniques to convey a world of corruption in the play, hamlet" write a response :P

ChristinaIndigo

Random_Person wrote: »

What's your reasoning behind this?

Everyone in the country knows that the paper cannot be predicted and this just goes to show it.. if you were caught out by it, tough. There's 8 poets, 4 come up so if you want to be guaranteed a poet, study 5, not just those "predicted".

I actually find it hilarious :pac:

True, studying less than 5 is completely stupid... but everyone will know 3/4 way better than they will 5/6. I'm presuming that everyone in the country studies at least five, but, studying five is completely different to knowing five inside-out. Most people go in knowing 3 absolutely inside-out and then 2 others well. Going in knowing 5 inside-out can make something else like Hamlet or the comparative suffer...

13spanner

Rich question was a walk, GVVP wasn't too bad, Hamlet was tough enough. Had a gut feeling Plath was going to be Boland #2.

Wkds

annettesayz wrote: »

I did that Hamlet Q aswell, regretted it half way through it was hard..

What different techniques did you mention?

bazinga_

Kinsella and LG was the only comparaative i knew and corruption was fantastic

WarZoneBrother

Wilwarin wrote: »

It was "Shakespeare uses a variety of techniques to convey a world of corruption in the play, hamlet" write a response :P

I think I may have overused the word ''corruption''

Stalin and rugby

*From the sec

To all the people who did Plath...

You mad bro?

annettesayz

Wkds wrote: »

What different techniques did you mention?

Really had no clue,kind of talked about deception bit much.. Um Ghost,Soliloquys and then just about the plot.. DISASTER... You?

boom boom boom

I think they spelt sylvia plath wrong on the paper

Siobhnk

I love Patrick kavanagh

montown

what techniques did people say for conveying corruption? i was completely befuddled for a few minutes, decided on characters, dialogue and imagery in the end! only got 3 pages but quality over quantity right? :P

ChemHickey

Wow. Now to relax.

Rich made that paper! i was so happy! Hamlet was a tad hard, madness. and comparative was grand! barely got time for unseen! Wrote 24 pages! =D

Happy!

biohaiid

annettesayz wrote: »

Really had no clue,kind of talked about deception bit much.. Um Ghost,Soliloquys and then just about the plot.. DISASTER... You?

I pretty much used my prepared essay and just tried to turn them into techniques. I think it worked okay? Probably not .. :L

Chavways

Why are people surprised Plath didn't come up? The only people who said she would come up were only guessing and they had no way to back it up. Ye shouldn't have put all yere eggs in 1 basket.

The Kavanagh question was so easy. I don't know why people didn't study him.

ImFudged

Hahaha hate to be the people that were dependant on plath/heaney I had Larkin and Rich covered 100% along with heaney and plath. I also had corruption covered for hamlet and nothing else. as for the comparative well I make that up on the spot