#essay plan

The notes I have so far for my EPQ (that’s the essay thingy I’m writing).

Just wanted to get overall ideas down + the different adaptations of Wukong and how I understand them before planning my first section

Here is a Basic Essay plan:

~FOR his being a good leader /responsible:

- tries to get them to leave Ismarus after attacking Cicones

- gets his men back from the Lotus-Eaters, using force in their best interests

- makes stops to take on food and water and ensures crews are well fed, so much so they vote him extra in thanks

- saves his remaining men from Polyphemus by clever thinking and action

- always shares food and loot equally with his men

- after several search parties come to sticky ends, he puts himself into the party and draws lots for fairness

- refuses to abandon his crew to Circe’s magic

- follows Hermes’ instructions to ensure his men are saved from being pigs (yes technically this means sleeping with Circe too)

- chooses not to tell his crew about the dangers of Scylla because he thinks it will cause unnecessary panic

- does tell them not to eat Hyperion’s cattle and tries to prevent them all from dying by begging help from the gods

- gives motivational speeches to try and improve morale (“my friends! We are utterly lost!” 😂)

- can carry *really* heavy stags on his own😉

- is such a responsible leader he attempts to stay awake for days on end to steer them home, and his men only make incredibly bad decisions (opening bag of winds, killing Hyperion’s cattle) when he’s not there to stop them

~AGAINST his being a good leader/being responsible:

- even though he tries to get his crews to leave Ismarus, they refuse, essentially mutinying, and he lets them = questionable authority

- puts his men unnecessarily in danger by insisting on exploring Polyphemus’ island even though they’ve already taken on food and water and even though he has ‘a bad feeling about it’, because their *might* be guest gifts, thus kudos, in it for him

- continues to put his crew in danger by revealing their location having escaped from blinded Polyphemus in order to claim kudos from having been the one to blind him

- continues to put his crews in danger by shouting out *again*, after they’ve narrowly escaped being sunk the first time, in order to further insult the cyclops, resulting in a curse that ends all their lives despite his men *begging* him to shut up

- puts his own life in danger by insisting on hearing the sirens, thus endangering his crew by removing their leader and putting them in the difficult position of refusing his orders (when he begs to be untied)

- doesn’t tell them what’s in the bag from Aeolus… although they should probably assume he’d share it with them if it was loot, because he has set a precedent for always doing that, by not telling them he creates confusion, leading to their mistake of opening it

- doesn’t stop the rest of the ships from entering the harbour at Telepylos, even though he moors outside = again questionable authority

- abandons 11 ships to the Laestrygonians because he cannot save them (ok he didn’t know they were monster cannibals but still, responsibility)

- chooses a more dangerous route when given a choice by Circe, because Jason’s already ‘done’ the Clashing Rocks and Scylla & Charybdis are unclaimed = more kudos for him again, adding to his personal kleos

- fails to prepare his crew for the dangers of Scylla & Charybdis instead choosing to sacrifice some of their lives for his and the rest of the crew’s (return to in Evaluation)

- absents himself at the crucial moment of their desperation in Hyperion’s island, ostensibly to pray for help, but knowing what Eurylochus is likely to do ie: go against his orders and kill the forbidden cattle

(If I’ve missed out some points I may add more later)

~EVALUATION

- although he can’t possibly be expected to know what’s coming (eg: Laestrygonians being monster cannibals), perhaps he should have taken more stock of the way things were going

- arguably, sacrificing some lives for the majority is one of those horribly difficult decisions of leadership, so this might even be admirable (?)

- he does question every decision he makes in order to choose what he considers to be the best course of action…

- …unless if it involves his own kudos, which is his priority

~CONCLUSION

- although he is not without leadership ability, Odysseus arguably makes too many decisions in his own favour, and is directly responsible for the loss of (12 ships x c.50crew each) c.600men, plus uncounted enslaved people from Troy

- and whereas some decisions made by his crew/men can be blamed for events (not leaving Ismarus, opening Aeolus’ bag, killing Hyperion’s cattle), that Odysseus doesn’t/can’t stop them suggests a lack of leadership on his part and/or a lack of trust in him from his men, and, on these events, we *only have Odysseus’s word for it*, as the sole survivor and narrator of these books, which are being narrated for the dual purpose of entertaining the Phaeacians and gaining sympathy from them so that they will help him get home and this is potentially an unreliable source that, like Odysseus himself*, simply cannot be trusted.

*due to his portrayal in every other literary text containing him as a character

I should end this by saying I LOVE Odysseus as a character. He is ‘meaty’, meaning there’s so much that can be discussed when it comes to him. If anything, he’s an annoyingly enjoyable antihero, like Milton’s Satan, or Shakespeare’s Richard III. Though he’s not a tragic hero and is only a ‘hero’ by Ancient Greek terms, *not* modern:

Opening Paragraph

David Fincher’s 1999 gritty cult classic ‘Fight Club’ perpetuates a rather complex and multidimensional narrative under the influence of various critical approaches that can be appropriately applied to the film. It stars Edward Norton and Brad Pitt as two personalities constructed under the values of the contemporary society depicted in the picture who assist in implying interpretations of what the film’s central critical approach is such as identity, violence, materialism and gender representation . This in turn can alter the way spectators perceive the film due to how the prioritisation of the approaches differs based on the individual audience member and therefore causes the film to be re-interpreted depending on the critical approach that has been chosen to be focused on, which is what I am going to be analysing in the following essay.

Arguments/Areas 

Consumerism: The Narrator is a representation of the traditional stereotypical American citizen which the spectators can find a sense of personal representative in- he lives an over excessive lifestyle consisting of material items which he fills with false value. “That was not a bunch of stuff that got destroyed...it was ME [I’d like to thank the academy]” Ikea catalogue scene showing how he’s surrounded by material items that have become his personality. Project Mayhem plotting to blow up credit card companies. “All the debt gets erased”. Tyler Durden is the manifestation of an escape mechanism from the overwhelming emphasis on corporate America and is the complete opposite to the Narrator in the sense he rejects consumption and leaves a lifestyle that lacks material items e.g. his thrift store jacket and decaying house “I reject all the assumptions of civilisation especially the importance of material items” “I am free in all the ways you are not". Interpretation of the film is that it is satire on the modern and illogical value of consumerism in America and is attacking those who live a lifestyle similar to the Narrator (Fincher used to work in commercials so there is irony and a personal element in the attack)

Identity and Duality: Narrative grafts itself on two polar opposite characters, one respecting the laws and values of society and one who rebels against them. The Narrator’s real name is never revealed and he takes on numerous alias in the support group to conceal his identity from the members and the audience. He subconsciously creates the alter ego identity of Tyler Durden which is shown through David Fincher’s technique of one frame flashes acting as a subliminal message, the photocopying scene (“everything is a copy of a copy”), Doctor office scene, Testicular support group scene and after Narrator formally meets Marla. Tyler is the Narrator’s shadow figure and a mental archetype representing all the qualities the narrator represses in his daily life- Jungian Psychology. The Narrator starts off polite and well mannered which our society expects and praises but after the inevitable growth of fight club in a physical and metaphorical sense, he becomes more rough and physical. “I used to be such a nice guy”. He beats himself up to threaten his boss and get him fired. His costume becomes stained with blood and swollen face makeup to execute this transformation from sophisticated and white collar, identical to every other corporate worker to bruised and beaten which he wears with pride (Chuck Palahniuk came up with the story after getting beaten up but his bruises were ignored by co-workers who didn't care). Interpretation is that the film depicts an exploration into the human subconscious and what it is capable of creating after the repetitive cycle of a trite and tedious modern life. 

 Violence: The violence that swarms through the fight club allows the masculine shadow side to vent. The group hug from the support group is replaced with overwhelming and graphic acts of men beating each other changing the film’s overarching symbol of the modern man. The males turn to violence in a desperate attempt to reawaken the senses that have been dulled and watered down by their quotidian existences and corporate jobs. “A guy you met at Fight Club wasn’t the same guy you met on the streets”. “A guy who came to Fight Club for the first time, his ass was a wad of cookie dough, after a few weeks he was carved out of wood.” The setting of the basement is a visual representation of a place where men can experience a true sense of ‘being’ and provides a space in which they can transcend the reality of their lifestyle, contrasts to the setting of the office with its high key lighting making it appear unsaturated and dull. Narrator brutally beats Angel Face demonstrates how excessive violence can cause a lack of control over one’s interactions with others, micro elements of cinematography and editing- camera is placed beneath Narrator in low angle shot to make him appear powerful and threatening (something that has been given to him through violence and fighting). “I wanted to destroy something beautiful”. Interpretation is that it is a presentation on violence and how it impacts and alters those who partake in it. Review by Robert Ebert:”a celebration of violence” and Megan Koester:”brutality they exercise on each other is borderline pornography”. 

Gender Representation: Marla Singer is the only female presence in the film but what she stands for is adequate enough to counteract and make up for the severe lack of female presence. Macro element of character representation. She invades the support group where the Narrator seeks refuge and comfort to eliminate his insomnia and this symbolises her invading his security with his masculinity and altering  how he perceives himself and makes him insecure. She is found in his mancave and replaces his spirit animal, highlighting how she is infecting his masculine identity. “If I did have a tumour, I would name it Marla”. She has the power to make the Narrator simultaneously despise her and feel unable to ignore her presence, “the little scratch on the root of your mouth that would heal if only you would stop tonguing it but you can’t”. She is brought into the film as a foil character, developed to completely contrast the protagonist’s personality in order to exemplify specific qualities that the protagonist has and lacks which she possesses. She verbally castrates the Narrator in defence of why she has the right to attend support groups which he attempts to take away from her, “technically I have more of a right to be there than you...you still have your balls”. Marla serves as the catalyst to the Narrator’s dissociation and Tyler appears because Marla represents the last descent into gatherer culture. Tyler Durden is seen as the ideal man with his good looks (pretty boy heartthrob Brad Pitt being cast to increase star quality, costume and makeup) , cool and collected persona and confidence to execute his masculine ways through fighting.This again acts as a physical representation of taunting the Narrator by highlighting what he lacks but longs for so badly which is why Tyler is constructed the way he is. “I look how you wanna look I fuck how you wanna fuck”, “I am free in all the ways you are not”. Tyler and Marla are constantly fighting over which sex has the most power, Tyler’s aggressive sexual intercourse with Marla where he objectifies her and makes her submissive but then Marla annoys the Narrator and expresses her sexuality over him by making him examine her breasts which makes him feel uncomfortable. Interpretation is that one sex has to have power over the other, the female can have an even amount of masculine and feminine qualities but the male can only have an excessive amount of one. 

Conclusion

March 8th, 2020

day 1/100 days of productivity

HOW TO PLAN & PREPARE FOR AN ESSAY-BASED EXAM!

I get a lot of asks and messages about how I go about studying towards an essay-based exam so I thought I’d summarise how I prepare a thorough plan that I can reproduce in exam conditions and guide an exam essay. 

I start this process 3 weeks before the day of the exam which leaves me plenty of time to revise plans and condense them as much as possible without losing the key ‘skeleton’ of my argument.