Appendix 2: Examiners’ report 2010

Advice to candidates on how Examiners calculate marks

It is important that candidates recognise that in all papers, three questions should be answered in order to get the best possible mark (ensuring that the rubric for the paper has been followed accordingly).

Examiners follow a simple mathematical formula when awarding a final overall mark: they give each answer a mark out of 100 (up to three answers only, as required by the exam paper); they then total all available marks; and finally they divide the total by three, thus giving an average overall mark.

So, if your first answer is given 57%, your second answer is given 56%, and your third answer 50%, then the calculation will look like this:

57 + 56 + 50 = 163

163 ÷ 3 = 54.3

Overall mark: 54%

Two good essays and no third essay will always bring the mark down. So, if in the example above a third answer was not given, the calculation would look like this:

57 + 56 = 113

113 ÷ 3 = 37.6

Overall mark: 38%

In this case, even if the candidate had written a ‘poor’ third answer getting a mark of 40% their overall mark would be higher than not attempting an answer at all:

57 + 56 + 40 = 153

153 ÷ 3 = 51

Overall mark: 51%

Note in the example above how the 40% mark, while low, still enables the candidate to achieve an overall mark in the Lower Second category, which is in keeping with their first two marks of 57% and 56%. Not answering a third question would see the candidate lose considerable marks and drop two whole classes. It could also mean the difference between a pass and a fail.

Candidates are thus strongly advised to give equal attention across the paper, plan their time accordingly, and attempt to provide three answers of roughly the same length and as full as possible. Candidates are also reminded that it is totally unnecessary to copy out the question again into the answer book; a question number in the margin is sufficient enough, and this will also save valuable minutes.

General remarks

The most popular questions were Section A: questions 1a and 1b; Section B: question 2; Section C: question 8.

This report will discuss in some detail all the questions attempted by candidates.

What the Examiners liked

This year there was an exceptionally high standard of work, with a good number of first class and 2:1 grades achieved, with very few fails. This is an encouraging trend and it is to be hoped that the standard will continue to improve as candidates take advantage of support mechanisms, such as Goldsmiths’ essay marking scheme and e-seminars.

What the Examiners found to criticise

Last year’s failings still persist so the advice given previously merits repeating. Some poor handwriting and confused expression was observed. Every minute counts in the examination so candidates really should avoid wasting time unnecessarily copying out the questions, or providing footnotes and references. Poor use of English and persistently poor spelling continue to reduce candidates’ marks. Candidates are urged to ensure that they write on three questions, to maximise their potential score. In Sections B and C, it is not a good idea to try to cover too many plays. In order to discuss the material adequately, no more than three plays at most should be treated in a single essay. Those who attempt to discuss more than three usually fail to develop a discussion to much effect, producing a mere ‘list’ of examples. This does not constitute an academic essay at this level. Candidates are once again encouraged to make full use of the essay marking scheme which provides feedback and advice on effective writing techniques.

What the Examiners would like to have seen

Performance in this section continues to improve overall, although too many candidates still lack the necessary skills with which to comment on the extracts effectively. Essay writing practice for this section is essential so, once more, candidates are urged to submit work under the essay marking scheme for formative feedback. Crudely listing basic elements, naming features and relating the plot will not achieve a good pass. Guidance is provided in the University’s guide, Responding to ‘Section A’ questions (2004).

Section A

Question 1
Passage a

This was one of the most popular passages chosen for commentary. Most candidates picked up on the sexual tension between Olivia and the disguised Viola, along with the ironies of the situation. Some commented on Olivia’s style of speech as indicative of her self-dramatising and role-playing, as she expresses her passion using a high style and intense imagery (‘enchantment’, ‘tyrannous’, the wolf and its prey). The inequality between them is evident in the relative disposition of lines, as Viola awkwardly tries to say as little as possible and leave. Some remarked on the comedic effect of the stychomythia (lines 28–34). Unfortunately candidates made quite a few mistakes concerning form, for example many perceiving prose where there is none. Some good observations were made about the precise effects achieved, such as the overly smooth enjambment, the fanciful quality of the imagery suggestive of Olivia’s tendency to make-believe, the entangled paradoxes towards the end of her speech betraying either real excitement or a deluded intoxication with the idea of love.

Passage b

This was another very popular choice. Again, some candidates thought the passage contained prose whereas it is entirely in verse. Mistakes over the century in which the play was written, who the characters are, and whether or not the couple is already married, suggest too little familiarity with the play on the part of some candidates. Nevertheless many closely analytical answers delivered thorough commentaries. Many good points were made concerning the shrewd behaviour of Petruchio, such as the excessive Petrarchan politeness he exhibits while ironically acting in an utterly dismissive way towards Katherina. The dynamics of the passage were appreciated by quite a few people, who commented upon such features as the shared lines (lines 10–18); these provide a farcical exchange intensifying the humour, with the triple repetition of ‘entreat’ leading to the witty refutation by Petruchio even as he appears to capitulate. Katherina’s repeated assertion, ‘...till I please myself’, fits her character perfectly, but works to expose her wilfulness while anticipating the imminent frustrating of her will. The best candidates paid attention to all figures present – rather than simply focusing on the two main characters the impact of a crowd at the wedding feast was appreciated, making public the unfolding power struggle as well as influencing the behaviour of both Katherina and Petruchio.

Passage c

This was the most popular Jonson passage (taken from Bartholomew Fair). The best essays discussed the presentation of Busy as hypocritical critic of the fair. The opening exchange contrasts Busy’s blustering denunciation (itemising each object of his disparagement with lots of arm gestures and pointing finger movements implied by the repeated deictic ‘thy’) with the brief, businesslike – if slightly mocking – offers of Leatherhead. As the passage progresses Busy becomes increasingly impassioned, and idiotic, using heavily emphatic alliteration (‘... the broken belly of the Beast’, ‘The profane pipes, the tinkling timbrels’) and extended oxymoron (‘foul Fair’). His antagonism, violence and continuous noise make him the main culprit as far as the unsavoury nature of the fair is concerned, so that the arrival of the officers to apprehend him makes a fitting resolution to the extract. As several candidates noted, the pace of the passage is appropriately quick, with a series of rapid, sometimes overlapping, exchanges among a host of characters, creating a strongly realised sense of crowd and variety. The careful differentiation between characters is worth noticing, as Jonson provides individualising touches: Purecraft’s anxious (secretly resentful?) deference to ‘brother Zeal’, Littlewit’s peacemaking earnestness and readiness to collude, even Win’s silence (betokening pleasure, awe or dismay?). By paying attention to such specifics candidates deliver a thorough analysis which merits high marks. Simply offering general comments with hardly any detailed appraisal is the least successful strategy to employ, but many did just this.

Passage d

Only a few candidates chose this extract from Every Man in His Humour but those who did generally performed very well indeed. Occasionally there were problems with too little focus on specific features of the language and form. Some excellent responses discussed Kitely’s skilful manipulation of Downright, first deploying pathos to establish his ethical credentials (relating his charity and affection towards the ‘child’ he fostered), then feigned reluctance as he stretches out the delay for as long as possible, until ‘forced’ by Downright to describe the ‘altered disposition’ of Wellbred. Here he delivers a highly controlled account of the ‘decline’, using balanced phrases over 11 lines to praise hyperbolically (‘... perfect, proper and possessed... ’) before shifting at line 39 (‘But now’) to condemn extravagantly across a further 11 lines.

Passage e

Unfortunately most discussions of this passage from Epicoene were either too brief or too general. The passage clearly divides into two halves: the entrance of Morose and Dauphine as the former complains about his marriage; and the interaction with Truewit and Epicoene which exemplifies and exacerbates Morose’s grievance. The language is full of the specific place names and topical references usually favoured by Jonson, as well as a range of loaded terms charged with deep religious significance (‘cursed angel’, ‘devil’, ‘minister’, ‘penance’) creating a thread of imagery. The amusing series of questions from Epicoene exasperate Morose, demonstrating his own foolishness: it is extremely ironic and comedic that her three observations (lines 28–29) draw three rhetorical questions from him complaining of her excessive speech (lines 30–31).

Section B

Question 2

This was by far the most popular choice of question in Section B. Most essays dealt with marriage in As You Like It, The Taming of the Shrew, Much Ado about Nothing and A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The less successful essays did little more than retell the plot, forgetting to assess the ‘satisfactory’ resolution achieved by marriage. The better responses presented particular arguments (for example, considering how unorthodox Shakespeare’s treatment of marriage is; discussing the implausibility of many marriages as in Twelfth Night; contrasting the two couples in Much Ado about Nothing). A good strategy is to appraise a range of representations of marriage, for instance, considering how and to what effect Shakespeare presents enormously contrasting couples in As You Like It. The most successful candidates analysed and commented upon the extremes and complications here with Touchstone, Silvius, Oliver and Orlando each experiencing very different unions, some much more ‘satisfactory’ than others. The dynamic in play deserves full consideration.

Question 3

In answering this question, most candidates chose to write on commerce. What candidates are warned against is attempting to write on all three topics; there simply is not enough time to do justice to all three and efforts to cover all topics resulted in poor, superficial pieces which often failed to gain a pass grade. The rubric emphasises that only ‘one’ topic is to be chosen, so technically, offering more than one constitutes a violation.

Commerce is a key aspect of The Merchant of Venice, Volpone, Bartholomew Fair and The Alchemist. The ‘symbolic significance’ needs to be kept in the foreground when considering any of these plays. Merely describing where and how commerce occurs will not gain good marks. The better essays took account of the function and deployment of commerce, for instance, in The Merchant of Venice, where both sides of the religious divide practise commerce but strong contrasts develop which expose prejudice and hypocrisy operating beneath the surface. The romantic aspirations of Bassanio are mingled from the opening of the play with pressing financial concerns, which some see as debasing his protestations of love. Jonson often presents commercial activities as symbolic of moral standing; hostility towards commerce is particularly prominent in Bartholomew Fair, while his other plays depict the gullibility of the greedy being exploited to reveal social dysfunction.

Feasting takes on a ritualistic, almost sacramental quality in As You Like It, contributing to the establishment of an alternative community in the Forest of Arden. In Twelfth Night, the excessive consumption of resources in Olivia’s household becomes a moral issue, setting appetite/desire against aesthetic self-denial. Hunting in A Midsummer Night’s Dream has many functions, including mirroring the chase of love (a common trope). Candidates produced some very fine essays on such topics.

Question 5

Unfortunately essays on this topic were generally disappointing as too often they failed to address the question specifically, tried to cover too many plays, and in some cases, neglected to consider genre, which is the central issue. As You Like It was a common choice of play here, providing a good example of the ‘mixed’ mode, combining high tragedy with comic resolution. The Merchant of Venice would have provided another very good example of such a strong contrast, mixing elements from very different genres. The experimental nature of Shakespearean and Jonsonian comedy can be explored with reference to just about any play. What matters is to be clear about certain generic features, with a good awareness of essential attributes of comedy and tragedy, satire and burlesque. Conventions from commedia dell’arte, the comedy of humours, City comedy, and so on are followed and diverged from, with both playwrights often treating traditional matter in a complex manner. Main themes and characterisation should be considered alongside other features which contribute to generic complexity such as the role of the sub-plot, non-naturalistic aspects of performance and gender constraints operating at the time.

Question 6

Answers to this question covered a wide range of plays including Every Man in His Humour, Volpone, As You Like It and The Merchant of Venice. It is important here that candidates assess clearly the degree of appropriateness and satisfaction in dramatic terms. Are villains justly treated? In the case of figures such as Shylock and Malvolio, this may not be a straightforward matter. Are the foolish treated too leniently or too harshly? If ambiguities and tensions remain, then the consequences may be seen to be ill-fitting. The achievement of the dramatist should be considered not just at the end of the play, the usual place for final resolution, but also during the course of the drama. A good approach is to construct a clear argument, for example, presenting a selective appraisal of female figures whose experience leaves many questions unanswered, or whose fate seems troubling in some way, such as Hero, Jessica, Celia or Dol Common. Alternatively, an effective debate could be staged to take account of whether innocence is rewarded or subjected to excessive trial; whether intelligence is good or bad, according to the presentation of ‘clever’ characters (e.g. Mosca). Having a definite purpose or structure to the discussion tends to produce a far more successful essay than those which simply retell the plot.

Question 7

The topic of passing time was the only one chosen here and it was generally very well handled. There are various aspects of ‘time’ which might be discussed, such as the presence or absence of ‘real’ time (i.e. the Classical concept of Unity of Time), the manipulation of the audience’s perception of time, the varied presentation of certain scenes as lengthy and others as rapidly enacted, the effects of specific time ‘frames’ (e.g. the festive occasion of Twelfth Night, one midsummer’s night, an afternoon at the fair). Jonson’s use of time constraints is particularly interesting. Fruitful approaches to this question might consider the means by which he presents action which is both specific and imprecise, within and outside time; his masterful exploitation of pace, which is evident within individual scenes and speeches as well as overall; the comedic effects of the gathering pace of much of his semi-farcical material.

Section C

Question 8

This was the most popular choice in Section C, with over half of all candidates choosing to write on disguise. As disguise is one of the most common features of Shakespeare’s and Jonson’s comedies, there is no shortage of material available for consideration. What some essays overlooked, however, was the need to move beyond describing events and plot to construct an analytical or argumentative essay appraising both dramatists’ ‘treatment’ of disguise. It is essential to formulate an overall opinion as to how Shakespeare and Jonson compare in their use of disguise. Some possible questions to consider relate to gender: in these plays, what is the nature and function of cross-dressing? Is assuming the identity of a man liberating for female characters? Is it shown to be disruptive? Is identity itself revealed as an artificial construct? Are gender boundaries destabilised? How are moments of revelation rendered? It would also be useful to discuss other issues which may be at work, concerning class, religion and morality. Considering the topic from a particular perspective allows for a thorough response to the question. Those essays which adopted and argued for definite opinions fared much better than those which took a simplistic descriptive approach. Several outstanding essays considered Jonson’s deployment of farcical excess, analysed how styles of speech change along with appearance, explored how lasting transformations are achieved by temporary disguise, and compared self-discovery with self-deception. Candidates need to be aware that setting out lists of examples is the least successful strategy for such ‘topic’ questions.

Question 9

This question requires a detailed account of how both dramatists’ present a wide range of characters, styles of speech and/or incident. The multiple disguises of The Alchemist would be a good topic to consider, as role-playing accumulates in an increasingly frenzied sequence. Comparing the contrasting ‘voices’ present in Twelfth Night would also be interesting, considering for example, Feste’s world-weariness, Viola’s romantic expression and Malvolio’s self-righteousness. Effective use of contrasts and juxtapositions provide the essential dynamics of drama. All candidates are advised to study these features carefully.

Question 10

Few candidates wrote on the subject of self-exposure, despite its prevalence in many of the plays concerned. One obvious example is Malvolio, whose external image is shown to be drastically at odds with his internal attitudes. Jonson’s own Puritanical hypocrite, Zeal-of-the-Land Busy, provides a clear comparison. Volpone is another prime candidate to consider, perhaps alongside some of Shakespeare’s villains; similarly the actions of the hapless lovers in A Midsummer Night’s Dream revealing their shallowness and/or folly might be compared to the Collegiates, whose utterances betray their sordid souls. Having a strong comparison tends to be very helpful when assessing comparative dramatic treatment. In this case, it is vital that candidates address the point about self-revelation being funnier than third-party accounts.

Question 11

The few responses to this question handled it well. The two main features to consider are performance and acquisitiveness, as defining aspects of ‘self’ in Watson’s terms. Individual self-consciousness in The Merchant of Venice can be seen to be enacted in Shylock’s revenge plan, Bassanio’s ‘quest’ to win Portia and Jessica’s elopement. Deliberate acts and desires define all these figures. Volpone also embodies the role-playing self-seeker, while Mosca too is a consummate actor, so both illustrate this type of ‘modern’ mentality. Viola and Epicoene, Beatrice and Titania would be interesting female figures to compare. In fact, the layering of ‘self’ is a widespread phenomenon in the comedies of both dramatists. There is a case to be made contesting the terms of the quotation or limiting its applicability to the plays in question. One might, for instance, argue that types and caricatures equally demonstrate ‘selfhood’ by other means.

Question 12

This was a very popular question, with excellent pieces on the Malcontent (e.g. Don John), the Outsider (e.g. Shylock), the theatricality of stereotypical villainy (Volpone) andhow dupes and gulls are unwittingly manipulated into villainous acts (e.g. Claudio). Several good essays discussed such topics as the degree of villainy demonstrated, the attention given to the causes or origins of wickedness, how prejudice is exploited and how the audience is made complicit. Another fruitful line of enquiry could consider the punishments accorded to wrongdoers, as indicators of ‘just deserts’, demonstrating the playwrights’ attitudes towards different kinds of villainy. As long as candidates discussed the means by which villainy is represented, and constructed a clear comparison of the dramatists’ methods, their essays were generally successful. Those who merely listed examples of villainy tended to fare badly.

Question 13

Quite a few candidates chose this question. Again, structuring answers so as to compare the playwrights’ practices was a much better strategy than listing examples. Plays which were discussed included A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Twelfth Night, The Alchemist, The Taming of the Shrew, Epicoene, Much Ado about Nothing and Volpone. Clearly this diverse material yields a great deal of variety in the tensions created and resolved, covering love rivalries, delusion, illusion, social, racial and religious disharmony, conflicting desires and competitive villainy. Some outstanding essays paid close attention to features such as the contrasting conventions of pastoral and city comedy, and detailed appraisal of specific dramatic techniques (the use of blocking agents, pace, discovery patterns and so on).