Measure for Measure is currently studied in VCE English under Area of Study 1 - Text Response. For a detailed guide on Text Response, check out our Ultimate Guide to VCE Text Response.

INTRODUCTION‍

Ahh William Shakespeare. That guy. You’re probably thinking, “Great. More fancy language. Hasn’t he been dead for centuries? Why does he keep popping up in our English curriculum?”

At least, that’s how I reacted.

Shakespeare is actually a huge figure in the history of the English language, and really no high school English curriculum is complete without a mandatory dose of him. In fact, the current VCAA study design demands that one of his texts must be on the text list. What a legend.

Shakespeare doesn’t only influence our world in the classroom. The Bard coined many words and phrases that we use today. We can thank this playwright for “be -all, end-all”, “good riddance”, and my personal favourite, “swagger”.

The Bard’s play “Measure for Measure” was first performed in 1604; over 400 years ago. So why do we still study his works today? In fact, the ideas and themes that are evoked in his plays are universal and timeless; pertinent to his contemporary counterparts, as well as today’s audience. Shakespeare’s plays are like soup (bear with me, this is going somewhere). One could say the playwright is a master chef; he mixes tales of the human condition and experience and asks us to question people and ideas. Everyone, regardless of their time, will gobble up the story.

So, what is this soup- I mean ‘Measure for Measure’ about? The play is known as a “problem play” and/or “tragicomedy”. That’s right, it’s both a tragedy and a comedy. Dire trials and tribulations are intertwined with humorous gags and jokesters. I guess Shakespeare couldn’t choose just one.  

‘Measure for Measure’ is also a problem play. Critic W.W Lawrence defined a problem play as one in which "a perplexing and distressing complication in human life is presented in a spirit of high seriousness ... the theme is handled so as to arouse not merely interest or excitement, or pity or amusement, but to probe the complicated interrelations of character and action, in a situation admitting of different ethical interpretations".

Ok, crazy, but he also said that "the 'problem' is not like one in mathematics, to which there is a single true solution, but is one of conduct, as to which there are no fixed and immutable laws. Often it cannot be reduced to any formula, any one question, since human life is too complex to be so neatly simplified.”

In short, a problem play presents lots of complications and issues that are open to different ethical interpretations. As in “Measure for Measure”, the “problem(s)” is/are not always solved.

So, what actually happens in this play that is problematic? What are our ingredients in this problem soup?

‍P(L)OT SUMMARY

Get it? Cause soup is cooked in a pot. Sorry.

The Duke of Vienna appoints his deputy, Angelo, as the temporary leader. This Duke then pretends to leave town but instead dresses up as a friar to observe what happens in his absence. Angelo, strict and unwavering in his dedication to following the rules, decides to rid Vienna of all the unlawful sexual activity; including shutting down the brothels. Prostitutes like Mistress Overdone (pun alert) and her pimp Pompey are poised to lose their livelihoods. Laws against this activity exist, but they’ve gotten lax over the years. Angelo, a stickler for the rules, has Claudio arrested because young Claudio has gotten his engaged wife-to-be (Juliet) pregnant before they were officially married. Claudio is to be executed.

The virtuous Isabella, Claudio’s sister, is poised to enter a nunnery. Upon hearing of her brother’s arrest and sentence, she goes to Angelo to beg him for mercy. He hypocritically, in an absolutely dog move, propositions her, saying he’ll pardon her brother if she sleeps with him (with Angelo, not Claudio). She immediately refuses, being the religious and chaste woman that she is. At first Claudio is upset because he wants to live, but then he calms down and accepts death.

Luckily, the Duke (secretly dressed as a friar) helps in their sticky situation. He brews up a plan; Angelo’s former flame Mariana was engaged to him, but he broke off their engagement after she lost her dowry in a shipwreck. The Friar (Duke) plans to have Isabella agree to sleep with Angelo, but then send Mariana in her place. In theory, Angelo would pardon Claudio and be forced to marry Mariana by law.

The old switcheroo goes off without a hitch. But come morning, Angelo refuses to pardon Claudio, fearing he will seek revenge. The Duke, in collaboration with the Provost, send Angelo the head of a dead pirate (Ragozine) who died of natural causes. They claim that it’s Claudio’s head, and Angelo is satisfied, thinking him to be dead. Isabella is also told that her brother is dead and is encouraged by the Friar (Duke) to complain about Angelo to the Duke, who is returning home.  

The Duke makes a grand return to Vienna, saying he will hear any complaints immediately. Isabella tells her story, and the Duke feigns disbelief, despite having orchestrated the plan himself. In an act filled with more twists and turns than a Marvel movie, everything comes out; the Duke reveals he was a friar all along, Angelo is forced to confess, and Claudio is pardoned amongst other things. To top it all off, the Duke proposes to Isabella. Crazy!

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

It’s important to acknowledge what was going on in the world during the writing of a text. This may help give insight into why the author has included (or not included) some aspect of their work.

The Divine Right of Kings

This holy mandate states that a monarch derives his right to rule from the will of God and is not subject to earthly authority. The “king” or monarch is hence practically divine, and questioning his orders is also questioning god; blasphemy.

The Great Chain of Being/Class divides

This chain is a hierarchy of all life forms and matter in the following order:

• God
• Angels
• Kings & Royalty
• Nobles
• Commoners (Gentry, Merchants, Yeoman, Laborers)
• Slaves
• Animals
• Plants
• Non-living things

Hence, alongside The Divine Right of Kings, this ideal gave monarchs huge power over their subjects.

In early 1600s England, there was a defined social hierarchy and class system. Everyone had a place in the hierarchy, and there was little movement between the classes. Within each class, men were considered superior to women.

Shakespeare encourages us to ask a few questions of our supposedly holy leader and his actions. According to the Divine Right of Kings, the Duke is god’s right-hand man, and thus all his decisions are holy and backed by heaven. However, the Duke is pretty shady when he plots his bed-trick plan with Isabella and Mariana. Is this deceptive behavior still holy? Furthermore, is it not sacrilege to pretend to be a holy friar when one is not truly a holy man?

Moreover, when the Duke assigns Angelo as his deputy, would this transform Angelo into a divine ruler too? Could he be divine, considering his cruel rule and despicable request to Isabella?

Women

Women were considered subservient, lower class citizens then men. Alliances were forged between powerful families through arranged marriages of daughters. These girls may have received an education through tutors attending their homes (there were no schools for girls), but their endgame would be marriage, children and maintaining the home. Women and girls of a lower class did not receive any formal education but would have learned how to govern a household and become skilled in all housewifely duties. Impoverished and desperate women (Mistress Overdone) would turn to prostitution to stay alive.

Shakespeare perhaps highlights the struggle of women in his female characters; Isabella, Mistress Overdone, Juliet, and Kate Keepdown. Their futures appear bleak; Isabella is poised to enter a nunnery, Juliet’s husband (her only source of income and protection) is to be executed, while the brothels that facilitate Mistress Overdone and Kate Keepdown’s livelihoods are being closed down by Angelo.

Jacobean Audience

It was a tumultuous time when Shakespeare penned ‘Measure for Measure’ in 1604. A year earlier came the end of the 45 year long Elizabethan era and began the Jacobean era under the rule of King James. Since the late Queen Elizabeth had no direct heirs, King James of Scotland (a relative) took to the throne. Little was known by the English people of this foreign king.

Perhaps, as Shakespeare portrays the ruler in ‘Measure for Measure’ as clever and good-hearted, the Bard sought to appease the king by calming the people and encouraging them to trust in their new monarch.

The playwright characterizes the Duke as loving his people, but not enjoying being before their eyes and in the spotlight; much like King James, a quiet ruler who relished studying privately in his great library.

‍Playhouses and Brothels

The general public (commoners) paid a penny (could buy you a loaf of bread back in the day) to see Shakespeare’s plays, standing in the “yard”; on the ground, at eye-level of the stage. The rich (gentry) paid 2 pennies for seating in the galleries, often using cushions. The really rich (nobles) could watch the play from a chair set on the side of the stage itself. Shakespeare’s plays were performed at the Globe Theatre. Playhouses in Shakespeare's time were often close to brothels, both in terms of their physical locations in the suburbs and the way they were viewed by some of polite society. Thus, Shakespeare's relatively sympathetic portrayal of sexual deviance in ‘Measure for Measure’ may also constitute a defence of other suburban entertainment—his plays—and a way to humanize lower classes who patronized them.

WRITING ABOUT 'MEASURE FOR MEASURE'

If you’re lucky enough to study this interesting piece, the study design requires you to prepare “sustained analytical interpretations…discussing how features of the text create meaning and using textual evidence to support (your) reasons”. Basically, you’ll be given a topic; this topic could surround themes, characters, etc., and you must write analytically.

While you may choose to structure paragraphs around themes, ideas or characters, make sure to embed some historical context in there; that’ll show the examiner that you’ve done your research and have a thorough and deeper understanding of why Shakespeare put this or that in. Talking about authorial intent in your analytical essay leads to a more in-depth analysis.

“Shakespeare portrays characters that are flawed as a result of pre-destined circumstances. These characters, such as bawd Pompey and prostitute Mistress Overdone, lived in a time when there existed strong class divides, and movement within the social hierarchy was rare. As per the “Great Chain of Being”, a contemporary religious dogma, there was a hierarchy of all living things and matter, from lofty God and his angels down through the ranks of men and finally to animals and non-living things. In some cases, attempting to move up the social ranks was even considered a blasphemous rejection of the fate chosen by God.”

- embedding historical context (The Great Chain of Being) into a paragraph that discusses characters being flawed because of their circumstances

“Shakespeare offers characters such as Isabella and The Duke who strive for self-improvement through understanding and temperance. Perhaps the playwright suggests that perfection is very difficult if not impossible to attain, even for a ruler like the Duke and a pure soul like Isabella. However, he posits that it can be strived for and that perhaps this attempt to become better is what truly matters.”

- talking about authorial intent - what is Shakespeare trying to tell us?

Think of it as an opportunity to make your very own soup! Add some themes, stir in character analysis, sprinkle in some quotes and serve with historical context and authorial intent. Just like with a soup, there’s got be a good balance of all your ingredients; test out different structures during the year to find what works for you. (Just try not to overcook it, like I have done with this soup metaphor). If you need more help, How To Write a Standout Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare Essay is for you!

So, you see, there’s more to Shakespeare and ‘Measure for Measure’ than just fancy old language and iambic pentameter (What’s that? Well...). Keep on reading this blog post, where we’ll delve into themes, characters and symbols/motifs. In the meantime, let’s have a break. Grab a snack, a drink, and enjoy this tasty Shakespeare meme.

...Aaaaand we’re back!

Are you ready for part 2 of the Shakespeare train? Hop on board as we explore themes, characters and symbols/motifs.‍‍

THEMES‍

These are the major themes in ‘Measure for Measure’.

As you can see, the themes are interconnected. (Do you like the diagram? Made it myself :)) Why does this matter? Well, if you get an essay topic about Justice, for instance, you can also link it to Sexual and Gender Politics as well as Social Decay/Cohesion.

So, why is any one theme an important theme?

Which moments and characters are these themes related to?

Is there a link to historical context?

What are some key quotes?

What could be Shakespeare’s potential message? (Keep in mind that depending which pieces of evidence you look at, the Bard could be saying something different. In this piece, we’ll only discuss one or two authorial messages. The beauty of Shakespeare is that much is open to interpretation. You can interpret characters and ideas in so many different ways!)

Those are some great questions. Let’s explore some of the biggest themes...

Power and Authority

Power not only dictates the Viennese society, but we see it is a basis for moral corruption (I’m looking at you, Angelo!). The Duke is the leader of Vienna, ordained by God. He hands this power to his deputy Angelo, who misuses it in his request of Isabella. Now consider Isabella - she has power too, but a different kind… Also consider characters who have little to no power - Mistress Overdone, Pompey etc.

This theme could be linked to the Divine Right of Kings, the Great Chain of Being and Women.

• “O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant” - Isabella when she pleads to Angelo to not kill her brother (Act 2, Scene 2, Line 130-132)
• “He who the sword of heaven will bear should be as holy as severe” - The Friar (Duke) to himself, not happy with Angelo’s dog move (Act 3, Scene 1, 538-539)
• “When maidens sue, men give like gods” - Lucio to Isabella, encouraging her to convince Angelo not to kill Claudio (Act 2, Scene 1, Line 87-88)
• "Hence we shall see, if power change purpose, what our seemers be.” - The Duke lowkey suggesting that once Angelo gets power, he’ll change into something evil (Act 1, Scene 4, Line 57)
• “Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall.” - Escalus is sneakily hating on Angelo. This quote shows that power and authority often involve corruption (Act 2, Scene 1, Line 41)

Perhaps Shakespeare is suggesting that power is a dangerous weapon and that in the wrong hands, it could be deadly.

Morality and Sin

This is an interesting theme. What defines sin? For instance, if Isabella sleeps with Angelo she’s sinning before God. But if she doesn’t, then she’s letting her brother die, which is not good either. Bit of a pickle that one. Some characters to consider include Isabella, Angelo, The Duke, Claudio, Lucio, the Provost…. jeez just about everyone! So many of the characters take part in questionable deeds. Was it immoral for the Duke to pretend to be a holy friar? Is Claudio’s sin of impregnating Juliet really punishable by death if both parties were willing, and no one else has been punished for the same “crime”? Are Pompey and Mistress Overdone being immoral in being in the prostitution business, if it’s the only way to survive?

Deep stuff man. This can be linked back to class divides, women and the contemporary playhouses/brothels.

• “What sin you do to save a brother’s life, nature dispenses with the deed so far that it becomes a virtue” - Claudio begs his sister to sleep with Angelo (immoral, especially since she’s poised to enter a nunnery), saying that it’s for a good cause, and will actually be a virtue/good deed (Act 3, Scene 1, Line 146-148)
• “Might there not be a charity in sin to save this brother’s life?” - Angelo asking Isabella to sleep with him and trying to paint the act as a charitable deed (Act 2, Scene 4, Line 65-66)
• “I am a kind of burr, I shall stick” - Lucio, who represents sin and immorality in Vienna (we’ll talk more about this later in symbols/motifs) (Act 4, Scene 3, Line 182)
• “To bring you thus together ‘tis no sin, sith that the justice of your title to him doth flourish the deceit.” - The Friar (Duke), encouraging Isabella and Mariana to do the dodgy bed-trick and trick Angelo (Act 4, Scene 1, Line 79-81)

Perhaps Shakespeare tries to tell us that there is a fine line between something moral and something sinful. Maybe he’s asking, “who are we to judge?”, since we all do questionable things sometimes. Everyone from the almighty Duke to a lowly prostitute has committed potentially immoral acts. Perhaps audiences are encouraged to be more understanding of others, and their reasons for these deeds.

Justice

Mmm, this theme ties in nicely with just about all of the others. How does one define justice? The play explores this idea; does justice mean punishment? Or mercy? How do we balance the two to deliver the right punishment/lack thereof? Characters that dispense justice include The Duke, Angelo (although they have differing ideas of justice) and Isabella. Since Vienna is a religious place, consider the divine justice system (ie. a perfect, flawless system meted out by God) and the earthly one (ie. the flawed, human justice system). Laws exist in an attempt to ensure justice. But does it always work? Consider also the Old and New Testament ways of thinking - the former strict and punitive, while the latter is more measured and merciful (see symbols/motifs below for more info).

This theme can be linked to the Divine Right of Kings, Great Chain of Being, Women, and Jacobean Audience.

• “Justice, justice, justice, justice!” - (Wait, are you sure this quote is about justice?) Isabella pleads for (you guessed it) justice to the Duke (no longer dressed as a friar), thinking Angelo has, in fact, killed her brother (Act 5, Scene 1, Line 26)
• “The very mercy of the law cried out… ‘An Angelo for Claudio, death for death!’ Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure, like doth quit like, and measure still for measure” - The Duke, explaining that it’s only fair that Angelo die for “killing” Claudio. (Act 5, Scene 1, Line 437-441)
• “liberty plucks justice by the nose” - The Duke tells Friar Thomas that the laws have slipped over the years, and the citizens of Vienna are not being punished for immoral deeds (prostitution, sex before marriage etc)

Perhaps Shakespeare says that since we humans are inevitably flawed, that any justice system created by us will too be imperfect. Who are we to decide the fates of our fellow man? Furthermore, the Bard may be encouraging us to be kind when dispensing justice, leaning more to mercy than punishment.

Sexual and Gender Politics

Who run the world? Gir- no it’s a bunch of men. This theme contributes to why ‘Measure for Measure’ is a problem play. The exploration of the female characters in this play are very interesting, and kind of sad. Of 20 named characters, only 5 are women. Together, their lines make up only 18% of the play. Yikes! There is a lot to unpack here. Our female characters are Isabella, Mariana, Mistress Overdone, Juliet, Francisca (a nun who speaks twice) and Kate Keepdown (who we never meet). Their situations: a maiden poised to enter a nunnery, a prostitute, a pregnant girl about to lose her husband, a nun, and another prostitute. Quite gloomy, isn't it? Meanwhile, the men are leaders (The Duke, deputy Angelo, and ancient lord Escalus) and gentlemen (Lucio, Claudio, and Froth). Over the course of the play, our female characters are put into worse situations by men. Their experiences are dictated by men. Consider taking a “feminist perspective” and exploring ‘Measure for Measure’ from a female point of view.

This theme links to the Great Chain of Being, Women and Playhouses/Brothels.

• “see how he goes about to abuse me!” - These are the last words we hear from Mistress Overdone, as she calls out Lucio for betraying her even though she kept secrets for him. All this happens while she’s being carted off to prison in only Act 3! What do you think Shakespeare is saying to us? (Act 3, Scene 1, Line 481)
• “Then was your sin of heavier kind than his” - The Friar (Duke) says to Juliet that she sinned more than Claudio, even though their sin was “mutually committed”. Even though they were both consenting, the woman is blamed more. Consider what would become of Juliet if Claudio was executed. She’d probably end up like Mistress Overdone... (Act 2, Scene 3, Line 31)
• “Who will believe thee, Isabel?” - Angelo says this after Isabella threatens to reveal his disgusting request. Ouch. It really goes to show how untrustworthy women are deemed.  (Act 2, Scene 4, Line 163)
• “Why, you are nothing then: neither maid, widow, nor wife?” - The Duke says this to Mariana. Basically, he says a woman can only be those 3 things. Jeez. (Act 5, Scene 1, Line 196-197)
• “When maidens sue, men give like gods” - Lucio to Isabella, encouraging her to convince Angelo not to kill Claudio. So, perhaps women do have some power. But, it’s due to their sexuality; something evaluated by men. Peachy. (Act 2, Scene 1, Line 87-88)

Perhaps Shakespeare suggests that women are treated unfairly in society. Maybe he posits that women are afforded so few opportunities in a man’s world. The Bard potentially says that such sexual and gender politics do not create a cohesive and just society.

Mercy

This theme, again, connects to many others. It can link to all groups of people (The wealthy, the poor, women, criminals etc). Most of the mercy is dispensed at the end of the play when the Duke does his grand reveal. Characters who choose to mete out mercy over punishment include The Duke and Isabella. Also consider Angelo, who instead of choosing to spare Claudio, decides to kill him to uphold a law that hasn’t seen anyone punished for the same deed. We might think this is harsh, but it a legal and lawful decision.

Connect this idea with historical context, specifically Jacobean audience and playhouses/brothels.

• “I find an apt remission in myself” - Apt remission = ready forgiveness. The Duke says this after pardoning Angelo (Act 5, Scene 1, Line 539)
• “pray thee take this mercy to provide for better times to come” - The Duke pardons murderer Barnadine, asking him to use it to do better. How lovely!  (Act 5, Scene 1, Line 525-526)
• “let us be keen (shrewd/sharp), and rather cut a little than fall and bruise to death” - Escalus says this to Angelo, who wants to enact all strict laws immediately. The ever-reliable Escalus advises Angelo to be lenient and merciful. (Act 2, Scene 1, Line 6-7)
• “Mercy is not itself that oft looks so, pardon is still the nurse of second woe” - Escalus says this, defending Angelo’s decision to punish Claudio. He suggests that sometimes being merciful can encourage further wrongdoing. (Act 2, Scene 1, Line 282-283”)
• “I show it (pity) most of all when I show justice” - Angelo says to Isabella that he is showing Claudio pity/mercy by punishing him. A firm believer in the law, Angelo thinks he’s doing the right thing and teaching Claudio a lesson by punishing him.  (Act 2, Scene 2, Line 123)

Perhaps Shakespeare encourages us to look at mercy and punishment from different perspectives. Angelo believes he is punishing Claudio for his own good, and cleaning up Vienna of lechery too. Maybe we ought to be merciful in our opinion of the deputy. Nonetheless, the Bard shows that in the case of young Claudio, mercy and forgiveness is the right path to choose. Finally, consider why Shakespeare may have portrayed a merciful leader to his Jacobean audience. Maybe if he were to portray a leader as fair and merciful, the Jacobean audience would trust that their new king (a man similar in character to the Duke) could be kind and merciful too. Earning the favour of the king and writing a killer play? He’s killed two birds with one stone.

Human Frailty & Fallibility

I’ve encountered many essay topics about how humans are flawed and imperfect. It’s a pretty big theme in many texts, not just in our friend William Shakespeare’s. Human fallibility is to blame for a lot of the going-ons in ‘Measure for Measure’. Angelo takes the law too seriously, he gets heart eyes for Isabella and kills Claudio even though he thinks he’s slept with Isabella. Why? He wants to save his own ass, fearing Claudio will seek vengeance. The Duke is flawed too. He’s a leader, but he just avoids his problems, leaving Angelo in charge to deal with them. Then he plans to swoop in and look like a hero. Kinda dodgy. Consider Claudio and Juliet too. They, like Angelo, succumbed to lust and slept together before they were officially married. (Sigh, humans just can’t get it right.) It’s also worth thinking about the “low-lives” and poorer characters. Are the poor frail in a different way? For example, Mistress Overdone keeps Lucio’s secrets for him. In that way she is virtuous. However, she sells her body to survive. Perhaps she is not prone to desire like Angelo, but serves another desire - a desire to survive?

In terms of historical context, consider the Divine Right of Kings, the Great Chain of Being and Playhouses/Brothels.

• “They say best men are moulded out of faults, and for the most become much more the better for being a little bad” - Mariana pleads to Isabella to support her in begging the Duke to pardon (her new husband) Angelo. She is optimistic for man, believing our bad deeds can lead to self-improvement. (Act 5, Scene 5, Line 473-475)
• “Why, all the souls that were were forfeit once” - Isabella pleads to Angelo to pardon Claudio. She states that all souls were flawed before Christ offered redemption. (Act 2, Scene 2, Line 93)
• “I speak not as desiring more, but rather wishing a more strict restraint” - Isabella is speaking to a nun as she is poised to enter the ranks of the nunnery. We usually think of a nun as living a very strict life, but Isabella wants it even stricter! Here we see her flaw is that her thinking is too singular and blinkered. (Act 1, Scene 5, Line 3-4)
• “Lord Angelo is precise, stands at guard with envy, scarce confesses that his blood flows, or that his appetite is more to bread than stone.” - The Duke talks about how unhuman Angelo is. The deputy follows rules very closely, almost to the point where he’s like a machine. His nature is too strict.  (Act 1, Scene 5, Line 53-56)
• “I love the people, but do not like to stage me to their eyes” - The Duke says this to Angelo and Escalus as he hands over power to his deputy. Even the Duke is not perfect, in that he does not like being before crowds of his people (Act 1, Scene 2, Line 72-73)

Perhaps Shakespeare suggests that no one is truly perfect, not even a leader supposedly ordained by God, a law-abiding deputy, or a maiden who is poised to enter a nunnery. Yet while Angelo is overcome by his lust and emotion, the Duke and Isabella attempt to better themselves by showing mercy and temperance. Maybe Shakespeare suggests trying to improve one’s flawed self is most important.

God, Religion and Spirituality

Phew, we’re at our last theme. So, society in Vienna is very much religious. Their beliefs dictate actions and laws within the city. Some very religious characters include Isabella and Angelo. However, our novice nun, who is obsessed with virtue and chastity, agrees to and takes part in the bed-trick, a deception that is not particularly Christian. Our lusty deputy also succumbs, hellishly propositioning a maiden to sleep with him in exchange for her brother’s life. Even The Duke, supposedly semi-divine, makes some dubious choices. He spends most of the play posed as a holy man, even though he is not. He plans the bed-trick to deceive Angelo and lets poor Isabella think her poor brother is dead, instead of saving her so much pain. Furthermore, the title of the tale, ‘Measure for Measure’, comes from the Gospel of Matthew. (See symbols/motifs for more deets). The question of how much we should let religion dictate us is another reason this piece is a problem play.

The theme of God and Religion can link to historical context such as the Divine Right of Kings.

• “more than our brother is our chastity” - (Act 3, Scene 1, Line 194) and “Better it were a brother died at once, than that a sister by redeeming him should die forever” - (Act 2, Scene 4, Line 111-113) show that Isabella values her chastity and virtue over her brother!! Damn girl!
• “Ay, but to die, and go we know not where, to lie in cold obstruction and to rot” - Claudio tells Isabella that he fears the uncertainty of death. Perhaps his belief in a heaven has left him in the wake of his impending death? (Act 3, Scene 1, Line 129-130)
• “Let’s write good angel on the devil’s horns - ‘tis not the devil's crest” - Angelo is talking to himself about his lust for Isabella. It’s an appearance vs reality (ooh another theme!) kind of idea, where you can try to pretend something is something else (ie. Angelo doesn't lust after Isabella), but it doesn't change the thing (ie. he’s still keen). The deputy is comparing his emotions to these religious extremes. (Act 2, Scene 4, Line 16-17)

Perhaps Shakespeare criticises religious extremism in his portrayal of characters like Isabella and Angelo. Or maybe he just wants us to remain open-minded about ideas and our spirituality.

Yikes, there are so many themes in this play! Let’s move it along, and talk a little bit about characters.

CHARACTERS

Each character can be viewed in different lights, even more so than themes can be. We’re going to discuss characters very briefly because it’s up to you how you want to read them.

Here are the characters, in order of how much they speak in the play. To keep things short, let’s pretend these are all tinder bios. Who would you swipe right on? (Hint: not Lucio)

The Duke

• super chill (the benevolent ruler of Vienna who’s let the laws slip a little)
  
• loves dressing up (actually spends most of the play disguised as a friar)
  
• clever/cunning (secretly counteracts the injustices decreed by Angelo)
  

Isabella

• strong morals (would rather her brother die than she lives in shame)
  
• can get wild (conspires with the Duke to complete the bed-trick)
  
• holy gal (poised to enter a nunnery)
  

Lucio

• a gentleman (well, his title is. He’s rude about the Duke and abandoned a prostitute that he got pregnant, so maybe he’s not that kind of gentleman)
  
• loves attention (legit! He’s a minor character but he has the third most lines of them all! Lucio loves to stir the pot!)
  
• loves some symbolism (Lucio represents all the bad stuff in Vienna…..see symbols/motifs)
  

Angelo

• plays by the rules (a little too much)
  
• hypocrite (Sentences Claudio to death for sex before marriage, while asking the same thing of Isabella…. wow we’ve found our antagonist)
  
• Deep (Angelo is a bit of a complex character. He seems aware of his misdeeds and struggles to deal with these desires. It’s hard not to pity him at times)
  

Escalus

• reliable (consistently counsels Angelo against acting too harshly)
  
• virtuous (he’s merciful, lets Pompey go with a warning in Act 2 Scene 1)
  
• loyal (trusts in the Duke)
  

Provost

• hard worker (he’s a prison ward)
  
• virtuous (does what’s right by him, disobeying Angelo’s orders to behead Claudio)
  
• magician (not really, but he makes Angelo believe that pirate Ragozine’s head is Claudio’s)
  

Pompey

• clever (philosophically debates whether prostitution is worse than murder)
  
• funny (his character is the clown, and he’s got some sassy comebacks)
  
• poor (Pompey is a bawd employed by Mistress Overdone. Not the best dating bio)
  

Claudio

• down for a good time ;) (impregnates Juliet before they are officially married)
  
• cool family (he’s Isabella’s brother)
  
• good hearted (initially is horrified at Angelo’s request of Isabella, saying she shouldn’t do it. Unfortunately, his fear of death get’s to him. After he’s calmed down, he’s accepting of death)
  

Elbow

• a man in uniform (a policeman)
  
• a little dumb (he speaks a lot of malapropisms - hilariously using similar but incorrect words)
  
• not like Pompey (Pompey is a clever poor man, while Elbow is a policeman who’s a little bit all over the place)
  

Mariana

• dedicated (still in love with Angelo even though he called off their engagement because her dowry was lost)
  
• a willing accomplice (participates in the bed-trick)
  

Mistress Overdone

• poor (she’s a prostitute, who fears for her livelihood when Angelo announces he’s destroying all the brothels)
  
• good hearted (kept Lucio’s secret. What secret? Read on…)
  

Abhorson

• works for the Duke (as an executioner…. there’s no way to make that sound nice)
  
• doesn't have a great name (c’mon it’s true)
  

Juliet

• also likes to have a good time ;) (pregnant before official marriage)
  
• dependent (if Claudio dies she will probably end up as a prostitute to survive)
  

Boy

• can sing (Mariana asks him to sing a sad song about how she lost her beloved Angelo)
  

Francisca

• holy gal (she is a nun)
  

Kate Keepdown (we never actually meet this character)

• a colleague of Mistress Overdone (a prostitute)
  
• single mum (Lucio got her pregnant and then ran away. He thinks marrying a prostitute is akin to whipping and hanging)
  

Ragozine (we never actually meet this character)

• dies (legit that’s all he does)
  
  

SYMBOLS & MOTIFS

These are people, objects, words etc that represent a theme or idea. For instance, the fact that I’ve used a bad soup metaphor AND a tinder reference means I need to go outside more. But let’s move on…

Title

The title, “Measure for Measure” draws from the gospel of Matthew. The idea of heavenly justice vs earthly justice is prominent throughout the text. Moreover, it’s worth exploring the Old Testament ways of “an eye for an eye” and “measure for measure” in comparison to the New Testament teachings which lean towards forgiveness and mercy. Now, where do the Duke’s actions fit in? Is he harsh and equalising? Is he just and sympathetic?  

New Testament vs. Old Testament

When the Duke sentences Angelo to death, he makes a fancy speech which includes the play’s title.

“‘An Angelo for Claudio, death for death!

Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure.

Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure.”

Act 5, Scene 1, Line 439-441

This mimics the Old Testament views, which famously states “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Exodus 21:24). These ideals teach that the person who committed a misdeed shall have the same misdeed done unto them. (For example, if you don’t like my new Facebook profile picture, I’m not liking yours…..but way more severe.)

In comparison, the New Testament states that we “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” (Luke 6:36-37)

So, when sentencing Angelo the Duke employs the words of the Old Testament. However, he doesn’t go through with Angelo’s execution, instead showing the mercy encouraged by the New Testament. He’s not really following either way. Perhaps he’s instead choosing a middle road; one of temperance and justice.

Lucio

Wait, who? We haven’t mentioned the “gentleman” Lucio much in the plot and in this blog post. That’s because he doesn’t really do that much other than buzz around and annoy everyone. Maybe that’s why his name rhymes with mosquito….

Regardless, we do see enough of Lucio’s character to learn that he’s not a very nice person. He treats Mistress Overdone and Pompey poorly, makes visits to the brothel, doesn’t take responsibility for his actions (getting Kate Keepdown pregnant) and bad-mouths the Duke. So yeah, we don’t like Lucio, what’s the big deal? Well, in Act 4, Scene 4 Line 182, Lucio says something very intriguing.

“I am a kind of burr, I shall stick.”

Burr - those little brown prickly things that get stuck to you.

We can think of Lucio as representing all the sins and misdeeds in Vienna - lechery, immorality, lack of justice, selfishness etc. Hence, Lucio is saying that these shortcomings and flaws will always be present to people and in Vienna, sticking to the city like a nasty burr. Damn, that’s deep.

Prose/Verse

The metre of the verse (ie. the classic Shakespeare writing) in ‘‘Measure for Measure”  is iambic pentameter. This means that each line is divided into 5 feet. Within each foot, there is one unstressed syllable followed by a stressed one.

Consider:

I’ll TELL him YET of ANgelO’S reQUEST, And FIT his MIND to DEATH, for HIS soul’s REST. (Act 2, Scene 4, Line 195-196)

Verse does not have to rhyme, as the above lines do. Shakespeare often employs a rhyming couplet to close a scene and add some drama.

Verse is usually reserved for the higher class citizens, with those who are less fortunate speaking in prose.

Prose is language in its ordinary form, with no metre.

Certain characters, such as Lucio, switch between verse and prose depending on who they are speaking to. This could allude to Lucio’s duplicity, or perhaps a deep understanding of class divides in Vienna.

Names: Escalus and Angelo

Escalus is the ever reasonable and loyal lord and close confidant of the Duke. His name gives connotations of scales and balance - characteristic of the rational man.

Angelo’s name has connotations of “angel”. If we judge him only by his name, he should be a pure and heavenly being. Bah! That’s so fake! We can see that appearance is very different from reality. Isabella notices this too, stating that “this outward-sainted deputy...is yet a devil” (Act 3, Scene 1, Line 95-98).

Angelo’s Words/Actions

There is so much to unpack about this douchebag. Let us briefly consider 2 ideas. When he propositions Isabella to sleep with him, he requests that she “lay down the treasures of (her) body” (Act 2, Scene 4, Line 100).

Firstly, that’s weird. Perhaps Angelo can be seen as someone who is obsessed with the physical - Isabella’s body and treasure. Maybe this obsession leads to his immorality and poor leadership.

Secondly, Angelo struggles to directly say, “hey, let’s sleep together”. He weaves his way around the request, propositioning Isabella so indirectly that at first, she does not even seem to understand his request! However, once she threatens to tell everyone about his vile demand, he speaks bluntly; “Who will believe thee, Isabel?” (Act 2, Scene 4, Line 163). Perhaps this shows Angelo is self-aware that he’s being an ass. Or maybe this scene is yet more evidence of a patriarchal society, with the men knowing very well the power they hold.

Ragozine

We never actually meet this fellow. Ragozine is a pirate who dies in jail while “Measure for Measure” unfolds. His head is used in place of Claudio’s to convince Angelo of the former’s execution. Fascinatingly, Ragozine is the only person who dies in the entire play. ALSO, he dies of natural causes. Interesting. It feels like the play is full of death, grief and many heads on the chopping block. But curiously, there is only one death, of a minor character, of natural causes. Perhaps this says something about fate and justice or offers some commentary on life and hope.

Elbow vs. Pompey

Elbow is a silly policeman who speaks in malapropisms (using a similar but incorrect word for humorous effect). Pompey is a clever pimp who seems to have a deep understanding of justice and the Viennese people. The comparison of these characters, fortunate and dumb to unfortunate and clever, perhaps serves to show that the law is not always apt and that sometimes those who break the law are more clever than it.

Mistress Overdone (or lack thereof)

Mistress Overdone is a pitiable prostitute. She worries for her survival when Angelo begins pulling down the brothels, and she keeps Lucio’s bastard child a secret, only for him to throw her under the bus to save his own skin. The last we see of Mistress Overdone is her getting carted off to prison, crying “See how he goes about to abuse me!” (Act 3, Scene 1, Line 481) Yes, the last we witness of one of five speaking female characters is of her imminent incarceration. Furthermore, this happens in Act 3 of 5, around halfway through the play! The audience never hears from Mistress Overdone again, and her future is left uncertain. Even Barnadine, a convicted murderer, is given freedom and a happy ending.

Consider writing a few sentences of your essay from a feminist’s perspective. Think about the events of the play from the female characters’ points of view. What is Shakespeare saying by portraying Mistress Overdone (and other women) in such a way? Perhaps he is pointing out the injustices of the patriarchal system, or how uncertain a woman’s life was in his contemporary time.

“Measure for Measure” truly is an incredible text. This blog post is by no means an exhaustive list of all its quirks and complexities. This play’s relevance has survived centuries, and I believe it will continue to be pertinent to audiences well into the future. You are very lucky to be studying a text with such universal themes and ideas that you can carry with you even after high school.

This blog was updated on 23/10/2020.

Contents

1. Introductions

2. Characters

3. Themes

4. Literary Devices

5. Important Quotes

6. Comparing Penelopiad and Photograph 51 Video Transcription

7. Sample Essay Topics

8. Essay Breakdown

For a detailed guide on Comparative, check out our Ultimate Guide to VCE Comparative.

Introductions 

The Penelopiad by Margaret Atwood retells the story of the Odyssey by Homer from the perspective of penelope, a half mortal and half divine princess who also happened to be the wife of Odysseus, and her Twelve Maids. A retrospective narrative, Atwood opens her mythological tale with Penelope and the Maids in the afterlife reflecting on the events that occurred centuries before. Told in chronological order from her birth, the Maids serve as a traditional part of greek theatre in their purpose of a Chorus as they make commentary on their life.  

Anna Zigler’s play, Photograph 51, is set during the 1950s in the age of scientific discovery as researchers are scrambling to be the first to unlock the mysteries of DNA. Its protagonist, scientist Rosaind Franklin is underappreciated genius working as the only female in her respective field. As one of her photographs uncover the truth of DNA, her subourness and her competitors ambition leads the men around her to success. 

Characters

The Penelopiad 

Major Characters

• Penelope
• Odysseus
• Helen
• Eurycleia
• Telemachus
• The Suitors
• The Twelve Maids 
• King Icarius of Sparta
• Penelope’s Mother (The Naiad) 
• Menelaus
• Laertes
• Uncle Tyndareous
• Melantho of the Pretty Cheeks 
• Palamedes
• The Fates

Minor Characters

• Autolycus 
• Anticleia
• Actoris
• Theseus and Peirithous
• Paris
• Agamemnon
• Teiresias
• Antinous
• Medon
• Iphthime 
• Sisyphus
• Piraeus and Theoclymenus
• Poseidon
• Athene
• Hermes
• Zeus
• Artemis
• Pan

Photograph 51

• Rosalind Franklin 
• Maurice Wilkins 
• James Watson 
• Francis Crick 
• Don Caspar 
• Ray Gosling 

Themes 

Power 

Both texts explore the use and demonstration of power in its various forms of physical displays of strength to the patriarchal forces that govern each texts respective world. Indeed, the power of men prevailing atop the social hierarchy while displacing those below them is a common theme within both texts. The authority associated with Icarius’ title of King allows his drunken and rude behaviour to go by unquestioned while in Photograph 51 Wilikins embodies the power possessed by white men. The patriarchal power that men possess within each of the respective texts becomes closely linked to fragile masculinity in their exertion of physical strength or intellectual superiority; Odysseus self-proclaimed superhuman strength is equated to Wilkins need for intellectual dominance, especially over the brilliant Rosalind. 

While the men within each text exert their inherent power of supposed supremacy, the women within each world draw are shown to draw on their physical appearance as a source of power or is shown to be disempowered by it. In The Penelopiad, Helens is known for her legendary beauty which she uses to relentlessly taunt Penelope, the proverbial ugly duckling, through which Atwood demonstrates how, like other forms of power, can be used to oppress others. Conversely, Photograph 51 examines how Rosalind is disempowered by her perceived lack of traditional physical beauty. Many of the men around her using her unflattering appearance to ridicule and minimise her and her work. 

Identity 

While the time periods in which the two texts are set may greatly differ, the notion of identity is still a prevailing theme that is explored. Indeed, the role others perceptions play in each character's construction of their own self-worth and values provides both authors a basis for the examination of how societies enforce conformity while punishing uniqueness. In The Penelopiad, it can be seen that the glowing perceptions of Odysseus from his mother and his nurse nurture and grow Odysseus’ egocentric view of himself as a hero. In contrast Photograph 51 demonstrates the negative effects these perceptions can have on one’s self-identity, as the negative views that surround Rosalind ultimately make her question herself and her actions. 

Not only do others perceptions shape one's personality, but the expectations enforced by Society. Both protagonists within each text feels pressure from those around them to live up to certain expectations; Penelope feels she must constantly encourage Odysseus’ self glorifying tales of heroism, while Rosalind feels similar pressure to follow her father's advice to consistently be right which eventually leads to her unfavourable reputation for being difficult to work with. 

Both Ziegler and Atwood suggest that in order to overcome the pressures and external expectations of society each which of these women must have a positive and strong sense of self. In the case of Photograph 51, Rosalind must adopt a strong self-belief in her work in order to survive the hostile masculine environment around her. By contrast, Odysseus constantly boasts and exaggerates his stories of heroism and the cleverness of his actions. While both Odysseus and Rosalind have a strong self-belief, Odysseus’ is guided by ego while Rosalind’s is guided by intelligence

Women and Misogyny

The feminine figure and roles are depicted in contrasting ways between the texts, but both show how the construction of characters who either adhere to or reject the social constructs of femininity during their era are forced to grapple with the harsh realities of being a woman in both ancient and modern times. One of the biggest examples of femininity shown within each text is the value the patriarchal system places on motherhood and the high expectations they have for mothers and mother figures. Some mother figures in the The Penelopiad demonstrate the gentle and protective qualities associated with typical feminine attributes; the two contrasting figures within the same text, Odysseus’ nurse and mother demonstrate the two extremes of femininity relating to motherhood. Eurycleia is presented as benevolent and dedicated to the mother figure ideal as she is shown to snatch Penelope's newborn son and invision him as her own. In contrast, Penelope's mother an elusive and neglectful Naiad leaves her child to swim around unsupervised. 

In Photograph 51 mothers are depicted as primarily concerned with the needs of their children and husbands as they are shown to identify themselves with their attributes and successes. It can be seen that such characters as Goslings mother's interest in his PhD suggests that like Penelope she judge's her own worth by her child's success. Indeed, while these mothers are shown to be nurturing and caring most of it emphasises their need to control and guide their child's life.

Not only mothers, but wives become another primary source of femininity that is examined within both texts. The Penelopiad’s notion of wives becomes closely related to the idea that within a patriarchal system women are associated with being a possession rather than an equal. Regardless of class and social standing every woman on some level is shown to be oppressed by this traditional and conventional idea of womanhood. Penelope is encouraged to be a doting wife to her husband Odysseus, while in contrast, the Maids remain unmarried yet still subjects of oppressive mistreatment. Unlike the The Penelopiad, wives have little to no significance within Photograph 51, a text heavily focused on the scientific discovery of DNA, Indeed, the woman or the wife is seen as irrelevant in the scientific field while any mention of women outside of Rosalind is confined to the wives of men contained within the domestic sphere. 

Storytelling and The Narrative 

The notion of storytelling and the power of narrative becomes closely linked to such ideas as femininity and womanhood within each text as each closely revolves around women taking back control of their own narratives and stories. The The Penelopiad is a story about other stories as it is based off retelling an already famous story. The Odyssey becomes a vessel for Penelope to share her own insights and feelings while her actions of retelling the well known work is a source of empowerment for her as she is able to negate stories about herself that she would prefer not to hear. This frees her from the burden of being a legend or a myth as she urges women not to follow her example of keeping their mouths shut. In contrast, Rosalind Franklin does speak out initially but gained an unfortunate reputation as a difficult woman in stories about her that are circulated by men. 

Through this it can be said that the aims of both Ziegler and Attwood is to challenge the historical invisibility of women throughout time. While Ziegler's play attempts to highlight the ways in which stories told by men have worked to minimise or downplay the roles and contributions of women, The Penelopiad attempts to offer new perspective of already well known stories that intend to give insight into the woman's understanding of life.

Literary Devices

• Dramatic Irony 
• Dramatic Monologue 
• Genre, literary form and its construction 
• Imagery 
• Metaphor 
• Authorship 
• Narrator 
• Narrative structure 
• Style and language 

Important Quotes 

The Penelopiad 

“And what did I amount to, once the official version gained ground? An edifying legend. A stick used to beat other women with.” (ch.1) 

“We were told we were dirty. We were dirty. Dirt was our concern, dirt was our business, dirt was our specialty, dirt was our fault. We were the dirty girls. If our owners or the sons of our owners or a visiting nobleman or the sons of a visiting nobleman wanted to sleep with us, we could not refuse.” (ch.4) 

“Water does not resist. Water flows. When you plunge your hand into it, all you feel is a caress. Water is not a solid wall, it will not stop you. But water always goes where it wants to go, and nothing in the end can stand against it.” (ch.7) 

“Oh gods and oh prophets, please alter my life,

And let a young hero take me for his wife! 

But no hero comes to me, early or late—

Hard work is my destiny, death is my fate!” (ch.8) 

“The more outrageous versions have it that I slept with all of the Suitors, one after another—over a hundred of them—and then gave birth to the Great God Pan. Who could believe such a monstrous tale?” (ch. 20)

Photograph 51 

“Dr Wilkins, I will not be anyone’s assistant” (Rosalind pg.13)

“It’s for men only” (Wilkins pg.17) 

“But those are precisely the conversations i need to have. Scientists make discoveries over lunch.” (Rosalind pg. 17) 

“...You don’t have to try and wing me over. In fact, you shouldn’t try to win me over because you won’t succeed. I’m not that kind of person.” (Rosalind pg.35) 

“To Watson and Crick, the shape of something suggested the most detailed analysis of its interior workings” (Casper pg.41)

Comparing Photograph 51 and The Penelopiad

[Video Transcript]

 Background

The play Photograph 51 by Anna Ziegler invites us to revisit the events surrounding the discovery of DNA’s double helix structure. While the DNA double helix structure is common knowledge now, in the 1950s many scientists were racing to claim its discovery. Ziegler's title, Photograph 51 is simply named after the X-ray photograph taken of the hydrated B form of DNA, which was crucial in the consequent events that eventually led to the identification of DNA's structure. However, much controversy has surrounded exactly who deserves credit for the discovery, particularly because the Nobel Prize was awarded to James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins - 3 people who did not actually take Photograph 51 itself. Instead, people have argued that Rosalind Franklin should have been one to be award the prize, or at least share the prize as it was her work that led to Photograph 51 and without it, Watson, Crick and Wilkins may not have discovered the DNA structure. Yet what makes this situation even more complicated is that Franklin’s work was shared with Watson without her knowledge in addition to the fact that Franklin died of ovarian cancer 4 years before the prize was awarded. Since the Nobel Prize does not generally make posthumous awards, Rosalind’s work has never shared in the glory along with the other men. Ziegler takes this opportunity to explore Rosalind’s perspective, and gives the audience a chance to peer into her experiences, interactions with others, and strong mindset. The question now begs: if Rosalind’s data had not been leaked, would she have gone on to discover the structure of DNA on her own? If Watson and Crick had not seen Photograph 51, would they have gone on to discover the structure of DNA on their own?

The Penelopiad is similar to Photograph 51 in that it is written from a women's perspective previously never explored in literature. While in Photograph 51, Ziegler allows us to be privy to Rosalind’s thoughts - a perspective unknown to media and publications because of her death, Margaret Atwood chooses to write from Penelope’s perspective, a view also previously never explored in Greek literature. Penelope’s reminisces about her life from her deathbed in Hades, the underworld. We learn of Penelope’s key life moments from childhood through to adulthood, such as the psychological damage inflicted upon her when her father attempts to drown her as a child, to her pretending to weave a shroud so that she can delay the decision to choose a Suitor who undoubtedly only wants to marry her so they could take up the throne and treasure. Her narrative is occasionally interrupted by the 12 maids who were killed by Odysseus, Penelope’s husband, upon his return. These maids were wrongly murdered and their presence in Atwood’s story brings attention to their plight as not only females, but as slaves during Ancient Greece. When studying The Penelopiad, I would strongly encourage you to be familiar with its historical context - mainly, you should have a good understanding of the story ‘The Odyssey’, the Trojan War, and the roles of the Gods mentioned in the novel. I’ve created a playlist I’ll link below for you with some videos I believe will be helpful for your studies. 

Common Themes

Women’s reactions to misogyny

Misogyny is widespread in both Photograph 51 and The Penelopiad, and both writers explore the ways in which females deal with such an environment. Penelope is more graceful in her response, as she is acceptance of her place as a women, as poignantly expressed: "I kept my mouth shut; or, if I opened it, I sang [Odysseus] praises. I didn’t contradict, I didn’t ask awkward questions, I didn’t dig deep.” Meanwhile, Rosalind reacts with snark hostility, "I don’t suppose it matters whether or not it suits me, does it?”. Rosalind refuses to let her womanhood impede on her career as a scientist, to the extent that her stubbornness is self-defeating and her being constantly guard only causes further misunderstandings and tension with Wilkins: “You know…I think there must come a point in life when you realize you can’t begin again. That you’ve made the decisions you’ve made and then you live with them or you spend your whole life in regret."

Misogyny from a male lens

In The Penelopiad, even Telemachus shows a lack of understanding and empathy for his own mother, and wants her to find a Suitor quickly because she is "responsible for the fact that his inheritance was being literally gobbled up." He disobeys Penelope’s wishes and resents being “under the thumbs of women, who as usual were being overemotional and showing no reasonableness and judgement”. Like Telemachus, the men in Photograph 51 has NO sense of what it means to be a woman. They is frustratingly presumptuous in the female psyche, as seen when Crick boasts: "See, women expect men to fall upon them like unrestrained beasts.” The viewpoints of the males in both texts highlight misogyny that is deeply rooted in society, and a demonstration of how far we can be from the truth when we formulate our own assumptions.

Women’s undervalued abilities 

Penelope is clever, but it’s only beauty and sex appeal that is valued in society as so clearly shown by all men charmed by Helen of Troy. Penelope's intelligence, and more widely, all women’s intelligence is seen as a threat for men as she says, 'cleverness is a quality a man likes to have in his wife as long as she is some distance away from him". Unlike Penelope’s era where women usually didn’t actively or overtly fight for their rights, the 1950s sees more agency in women. While Rosalind’s intelligence secures her a job and career, she still faces a hostile, sexist environment. Her fellow male scientists dismiss her credentials. From the get go, Rosalind is expected to ‘assist’ Wilkins, and is disparagingly referred to as ‘Miss Franklin’, rather than as ‘Dr Franklin’ she is rightfully entitled to. Moreover, her methodical approach to her work drives the frustrated Wilkins to share her confidential research to Crick and Watson, displaying males inherent distrust and disrespect of women.

Here’s a tip for you. You may have noticed that the common themes I mentioned aren’t just one-worded themes, like ‘misogyny’. Yes, I could’ve lumped my themes together under the umbrella of ‘misogyny’ but I wanted to go that extra mile. By breaking it down further, I am better able to showcase my detailed understanding of the texts, and you’ll find that adopting this specificity in writing is rewarded in VCE. 

Here’s another tip. At Year 12 level, and particularly in Reading and Comparing, your assessor expects you to not only understand the text itself, but to understand the real-life implications explored. Here we’re looking at human reactions and responses to our world and experiences. So when you start comparing Photograph 51 and The Penelopiad think about the human condition. For example, on a textual level, you’d be asking yourself: what factors drive Rosalind to act with such hostility towards men? Why is the way she deals with misogyny so different to that of Penelope? Now if we zoom out and look at the bigger picture, you need to start asking yourself: What do these texts say about us as people? What can we learn from these stories?

Obviously there’s so much more you can extract from these books and compare, but I hope this has given you something to think about!

At LSG, we use the CONVERGENT and DIVERGENT strategy to help us easily find points of similarity and difference. This is particularly important when it comes to essay writing, because you want to know that you're coming up with unique comparative points (compared to the rest of the Victorian cohort!). I don't discuss this strategy in detail here, but if you're interested, check out my How To Write A Killer Comparative. I use this strategy throughout my discussion of themes above and in the next section, Essay Topic Breakdown.

Sample Essay Topics

Whenever you get a new essay topic, you can use LSG’s THINK and EXECUTE strategy, a technique to help you write better VCE essays. If you’re unfamiliar with this strategy, then check it out in How To Write A Killer Text Response.

Character-based Prompt:

While Rosalind and Penelope are examples of strong female characters, they are both severely flawed. Discuss. 

Theme-based Prompt: 

In what ways do misogyny and expectations impact individuals identity within each text?

Structure-based Prompt:

What structural elements help convey the strength of women within The Penelopiad and Photograph 51?

Quote-based Prompt:

“We were told we were dirty. We were dirty. Dirt was our concern, dirt was our business, dirt was our specialty, dirt was our fault. We were the dirty girls.” (The Penelopiad) 

Authorial message-based Prompt: 

What comments do the authors make about the corrupting force of power?

Essay Topic Breakdown

Make sure you watch the video below for extra tips and advice on how to break down this essay prompt!

[Video Transcript]

Essay Topic: The authors of Photograph 51 and The Penelopiad give voice to the women in their stories. Discuss. 

Keywords

• ‘Authors’ - means I should talk about their intention and what message they want us to hear
• ‘Voice’ - power the speak, to story-tell, to share their side of the story
• ‘Women’ - be sure not to only talk about the main characters such as Penelope and Rosalind but other women in the books
• ‘Discuss’ - a word like ‘discuss’ gives you a lot of flexibility to discuss any ideas that are relevant to the topic, whereas a ‘do you agree’ style of question is a bit more limiting. With so much more flexibility to ‘discuss’ various ideas, I’m going to touch on topics that most interest me. I feel that this is a great way to get yourself in tune with the book, especially as you start writing. The more you can make the writing interesting for yourself, the more interesting it will be for your reader. 
  

Contention: 

By giving voice to the women in their stories, Atwood and Ziegler reveal stories of those previously silenced, and showcase how storytelling empowers women marginalised by misogynistic social constructs. 

Plan:

Body paragraph 1: In giving a voice to the females, both Atwood and Ziegler offer a new, previously unseen perspective on misogyny. 

• In The Odyssey, the maids are constructed as unfaithful and disrespectful of queen Penelope, Telemachus and other staff. Their own story is silenced and instead, is observed through others, whereas in The Penelopiad, the maids tell their own version of events - mainly that their actions were under Penelope’s instruction.

• The patriarchal rule is accentuated through their lack of status and rape, which is considered “deplorable but common feature of palace life”.
• Moreover, we feel sympathy for these three-dimensional characters, as they ’toil and slave/ And hoist [their] skirts at [men’s] command’. 

• Likewise Rosalind Franklin's version of events has never been revealed because of her early death. In Photograph 51, we learn of the misogyny Rosalind faced as a female scientist "My name is Rosalind. But you can call me Miss Franklin. Everyone else does."
  

Body paragraph 2: By offering these women a voice, the authors reject social conventions of femininity. 

• Penelope is cunning and intelligent, foiling the Suitor’s plans to marry her by delaying her decision with the endless weaving of her ‘shroud’. The juxtaposition of unsuspecting men and strategic Penelope thwarts traditional gender roles where women are viewed as inferior.  "They were very angry, not least because they’d been fooled by a woman."
• Meanwhile, Rosalind is stubborn and resilient nature rebuffs the narrow-minded beliefs of her fellow coworkers who believe that “kindness always works with women” and that "women expect men to fall upon them like unrestrained beasts."
  

Body paragraph 3: Most importantly, both authors showcase the importance of giving women a voice as a means to control their own narrative. 

• Penelope opens her reflection with an emphasis on how she “owe[s] it to [herself]” to “spin a thread of [her] own”. She shares how she now has the opportunity to share her side of the story, whereas allowing others to speak of her from their perspective means that “they were turning me into a story…not the kind of stories I’d prefer to hear about myself”.
• While Penelope is empowered to reveal her story and invites us to an alternate version of historical events, this is not afforded to Rosalind in Photograph 51. Rosalind is literally sidelined, “…we just hear her lines - a recording, or she speaks from offstage' and therefore unable to control her narrative. The stage direction (/) indicates that the men of past and present talk over her, reducing her opinion and overriding her speech with their own “self-aggrandisement."
  

Useful Resources

Compare the Pair- A guide to structuring a reading and comparing essay

The link between your contention and topic sentences in relation to the prompt

Master Reading and Creating

‍‍A Guide to Structuring a Reading and Comparing Essay

Reading and Comparing Essays

Don't forget to also check out Our Ultimate Guide to Oral Presentations for everything you need to know for Oral Presentations.

Here are over 20 Oral Presentation Ideas for you if you're presenting a speech on Australian issues in the media.

1. Should gay couples have the same adoption rights as straight couples?
2. Should businesses be required to have a sex quota?
3. Should political parties be required to run a certain percentage of women candidates?
4. Gender workplace diversity
5. Treatment of refugees on Manus Island
6. Should there be a temporary ban on all immigration into Australia?
7. MP citizenship
8. Should the government classify Bitcoin as a legal currency?
9. War on ice
10. Homelessness in Australia
11. Obesity in Australia
12. Sexual harassment in the TV/movie/hollywood industry
13. Should gender identity be added to anti-discrimination laws?
14. Should universities provide ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘safe spaces’ for students?
15. Should workplaces provide ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘safe spaces’ for staff?
16. Informed consent with online data
17. Religious freedom
18. Same sex marriage freedom
19. Adani coalmine
20. Political donations
21. Penalty rates in Australia
22. Wage theft in Australia
23. Indigenous recognition in the constitution
24. Should we invest in public interest journalism?

See last year's Oral Presentation Ideas here. You might also be interested in Advice for A+ oral presentations here too! Best of luck!

Background

Montana 1948 is narrated by David Hayden, now a middle-aged history teacher, reflecting on the summer of 1948 that changed his entire life.

It begins with David noticing that his Native American babysitter, Marie Little Soldier is unwell. Gail and Wesley, David’s parents, attempt to enlist the help of Wesley’s brother Frank, a well-respected doctor in the community. However, Marie reacts to this idea with fear, anxiety and resistance. Gail concludes that something sinister must be happening for her to have such a reaction and she presses Marie for why she is so afraid. Marie then reveals to Gail that she has heard that Dr Frank has been sexually abusing many of his female Native American patients. Gail immediately confides in Wesley who is both the Sheriff of their town and Frank’s brother. This becomes the central source of tension, as Wes must decide between his duty as the Sheriff and his loyalty to his family.

This is all told from the perspective of David, our protagonist, who has to watch his father confront his Uncle Frank about these taboo accusations. Eventually, it seems they reach an agreement with Frank to stop the abuse.

Marie is discovered dead the next day in her bed when Gail goes to check up on her. Later that night, David admits to his parents that he saw Frank go into their home in the afternoon and immediately, Wesley concludes that Frank “is guilty as sin” for murdering Marie. As the Sheriff of the town, Wesley is obligated to arrest Frank, but in order to spare Frank the embarrassment, he keeps Frank in their basement instead of sending him to jail.  

Upon hearing this news, David’s grandfather, Julian, orders Wesley to release Frank. Julian accuses Wesley of arresting him out of jealousy and he threatens to use his power within the community to set Frank free. At this point, Wesley realises that the power of his father would only be matched by the law, and he decides that he must officially prosecute his brother.

That next day, David, Wes and Gail wake up to find Frank dead, having used broken glass to slit his wrists and commit suicide. Young David believes that this was the right action and hopes that everything would go back to normal. But as the story goes, this is not the case.

Themes

Prejudice, discrimination and the abuse of power

Another key theme is prejudice, discrimination and the abuse of power. Frank’s abuse of the Native American women is both an abuse of his power and responsibilities as a Doctor and a way to take advantage of his personal belief in White “racial superiority.” Julian and Frank embody the toxic, violent and bigoted mentality prevalent during that time period, which Watson deplores as reprimandable and unacceptable. Even at the novel’s close, Frank’s death is symbolic in two ways. Firstly, it means that Frank managed to escape persecution, public denouncement and jail time. But more importantly, he is still revered in the community as a “respected man” and a “war hero. '' Therefore, while he physically passes away, his ‘legacy’ and façade of heroism remains alive.

Law vs Justice

One of the central themes of ‘Montana 1948’ is the conflict between abiding by the law and doing what is just. Due to the institutionalised racism that existed in the 1940’s, Frank’s actions were not considered technically illegal, however, by intuitive standards of morality, his rape of Natives in his practice and his subsequent murder of Marie clearly warrant punishment. Thus, Watson touches on the failures of the judicial system to consistently hand out judgements that are morally fair and instead reveals the flaws within the legal system of the time that reflect widespread and corrupt social attitudes.

Loyalty vs Morality

Watson also touches on the conflict between loyalty and morality. This, as we know, forms the crux of narrative’s tension. Should Wes arrest and prosecute his brother Frank or not? Should he stay loyal to his family or uphold the moral values that he must stand by as the towns Sheriff? Gail, David’s mother, embodies all the virtues of morality that we all stand by and she is appalled by Frank’s behaviour and demands that he be persecuted regardless of his relationship with Wes. In sharp contrast, Julian believes that Frank can be excused for his actions because the victims were merely “red meat” Native American women who he views as subhuman.

‍

Characters 

Gail:

Gail is David’s mother and Wesley’s wife. She is a compassionate, idealistic and courageous woman. This can also be seen as she stands up for Marie, despite the prejudices in the society at the time. She also spends a ‘good deal of energy’ protecting herself and her family.  She also doesn’t take part in Wesley’s racist jokes. For example, when Wesley makes a joke about Marie, ‘never been to anyone but the tribal medicine man’, David responds with ‘my mother didn’t laugh.’

David:

David is Wesley and Gail’s son and is the narrator of the text. He doesn’t share Wesley’s beliefs surrounding race and forms his own moral perspective. This is demonstrated when he makes a fuss about wanting to wear moccasins (which Gail sides with him on) while his father says will make him ‘as flat-footed and lazy as an Indian.’ 

Unlike his father, we don’t see David conflicted with his loyalties and he is particularly critical of his father. This is best demonstrated when he ‘was beginning to already think of Uncle Frank as a criminal’ upon hearing sexual assault accusations against Frank. When Wesley spares Gail the details of his investigation into Frank, David believes it could be because he is ‘trying to protect his brother and keeping the number of witnesses to the accounts of his crime to a minimum’. After Wesley arrests Frank and takes him to the basement for imprisonment, David assumes his father killed Frank despite Wesley not being depicted as a particularly violent person in the novel.  All it takes is an indistinct noise from the basement for David to conjure up ways his father could have killed his Uncle Frank.

Frank:

Frank is Wesley’s brother and is described as a ‘witty and charming’ doctor, and war hero who is widely loved by the community -particularly by his dad, Julian. In reality, Frank is a criminal who abuses his power - both a white man and a doctor to sexually assault Indian women - which he believes he can get away with.  This is compounded when he states, “I am not concerned about social progress.” Through Frank, Watson demonstrates how some individuals can abuse their positions of power and privilege, and to not lose any sleep over it (‘at smiling ease with his life and everything it’).

Wesley:

Wesley is Julian’s son, Gail’s husband, and David’s father and the sheriff of Mercer county. He dislikes Native Americans and frequently makes jokes about them and stereotypes them. He even uses the fact that Marie Little Soldiers is a Native American to belittle and doubt the credibility of her experience. 

Wesley’s conflicting loyalties become more complex and difficult once you consider the prejudices at the time, his job as an officer of the law, Frank’s station in the family and community, Gail’s strong opinions and his constant need to seek validation from his father. An instance that mirrors Wesley’s conflicting loyalties is when he tells Gail, “I wish you wouldn’t have told the sheriff.” When she told informed him of Marie’s sexual assault allegations against Frank. However, in Wesley’s eyes, Frank’s murder of Marie Little Soldier, is where the latter crosses the line. The magnitude of his brother’s crime is too large for him to let his previous conflicting loyalties as a sheriff and a brother hold him back from arresting Frank. After convicting Frank and having to argue about it with his father, we learned ‘for the first time how this experience with his brother was ruining him physically.’ 

Julian:

Julian is a bigoted racist man who has an unconditional love for his son Frank and unfairly favours him over his son Wesley. When he learns of Franks charges he exclaims, “What kind of bullshit is this?” He belittles the sexual assaults as Frank just ‘feeling them up’ and ‘assaulting an Indian’. At this point, Julian taking Frank’s side exposes how irrationally loyal he is to his son and suggests that even if the women were not Indian, he may still stand by Frank's actions. He protests that the only reason Wesley convicted Frank was that ‘ever since the war, ever since Frank came home in uniform and he [Wesley] stayed here [home],’ he’s ‘been jealous’. However, this comment seems to say more about Julian’s feelings than Wesley’s - perhaps, this is why Julain felt this inclination towards Frank. After this argument, we see Wesley’s feeling of defeat and heartbreak - that despite Frank being a murderer and a rapist, his father still seemed to pick his side over Wesley’s. 

Quotes 

Quotes on Prejudices, Discrimination and the Abuse of Power

• “He wears those and soon he'll be as flat-footed and lazy as an Indian" - Discrimination is evident in Montana 1948 where Wesley uses stereotypes of Indians to imply they are inferior to them, and that David shouldn’t be like them.
• "She's an Indian- Why would she tell the truth?”  
• “Your mother and I thought we’d have more to show than just one grandchild … and white- we want them we want them white”
• “Screwing an Indian. Or feeling her up or whatever. You don’t lock up a man for that.”
• “You know Frank’s always been partial to red meat.”  
• “Well if Sheriff Hayden says it's so, it must be so.”
• “Wesley, your brother is raping these women. These girls. These Indian girls.”

Quotes on Law vs Justice

• “Why did my grandfather first run for sheriff? … He wanted, he needed power. He was a dominating man who drew sustenance and strength from controlling others.” This quote shows that many people in society at the time held positions of power such as lawyers or sheriff but didn’t enforce the law or worry about the morality of their actions. Thus creating an unjust legal system that would allow these people to shape how the law is enforced with their own prejudices.
• “You know what your Grandad said it means to be a peace officer in Montana? He said it means knowing when to look and when to look away.”  

• “I think the problem has been taken care of. Frank said he’s going to cut it out”
• “Well if Sheriff Hayden says it's so, it must be so.”
  

Quotes on Loyalty vs Morality

• "David, I believe that in this world people must pay for their crimes. It doesn't matter who you are or who your relations are; if you do wrong, you pay. I believe that. I have to."
• “I wish you wouldn’t have told the sheriff.” 
• “I think the problem has been taken care of. Frank said he’s going to cut it out”
• “Well if Sheriff Hayden says it's so, it must be so.”
• “You don’t lock up your brother. A respected man. A war hero.” “This is a legal matter.” “Bullsh*t.” “Then why have you got him locked up here and not over at the jail? This is your brother here. My son!”
  

Quotes on Destruction of Innocence

• 'I had gone back into the house -to the kitchen, to my room, out the backdoor, I had left the porch and followed frank's steps down the front walk - I never would have heard the conversation between my father and mother, and perhaps I would have lived my life with an illusion about my family and perhaps the human community’ - page 33

• “The shock of hearing this about Uncle Frank was doubled because my mother was saying these words. Rape. Breasts. Penis. These were words I never heard my mother use-ever- and I’m sure her stammer was not only from emotion but also from the strain on her vocabulary.”
• “But I was on a trail that would lead me out of my childhood.”

‍

With contributions from Fae Saberi.

Introduction

If you, like me, grew up Asian in Australia, you might think you already know a thing or two about, well, growing up Asian in Australia. Our stories can be pretty similar—just have a scroll through the ‘subtle asian traits’ Facebook group, or have a conversation with literally any Asian Australian about their parents.

At the same time, it’s also important to recognise that everyone’s experiences are diverse, especially given how broad an identity ‘Asian’ can be. Also important is to recognise how broad and intersectional identity can be in general—intersectional meaning that race isn’t the only thing that defines any one of us. Things like gender, socio-economic status, ability, sexual orientation and religion can also be really central, for example. Each of these things can impact the way we navigate the world.

Covering a broad range of these stories is Alice Pung’s anthology, Growing Up Asian In Australia. Some of the contributors in this volume include Sunil Badami, Matt Huynh, Bon-Wai Chou, Diana Nguyen, Michelle and Benjamin Law, and Shaun Tan, and already this cross-section is fairly diverse in nature. You can also click on their names to find out a bit more about each of their work. I think this is worth a few minutes, just to get acquainted with the sheer range of Asian-Australian creatives who are represented in this book, and to locate their work within the themes they write about—in other words, having a think about the ways that cultural heritage, or experiences with family, or economic hardship permeate their work, both in the anthology and in their lives outside it.

The anthology is (perhaps quite helpfully) divided into sections which revolve around key themes, which is also going to inform the structure of this guide. I’ll be using this guide to go through an exercise that I found really helpful when learning the text, which involves:

• taking two stories per section and drawing up some dot-point similarities and differences
  
• translating two of those points into paragraphs, a bit like a ‘mini-essay’
  
  

We’ll go through some an example of what this might look like, and why it’s a helpful exercise to try.

Before we start diving into Growing Up Asian in Australia, I'd highly recommend checking out LSG's Ultimate Guide to VCE Text Response.

Strine (Badami & Tseng)

Strine is what’s called a syncope, a shortened way of pronouncing Australian (a bit like ‘Straya’)—it refers to Australian English as it’s spoken by locals. This section of the book is all about language, and about the difficulties of juggling two languages growing up, and Badami and Tseng’s stories are great examples of this.

1. Similarity: connections to one’s mother tongue fade over time. Tseng recounts how, one by one, she and her sisters stopped learning Chinese as they progressed through their Australian education. Badami on the other hand compromises his name which stood out as too Indian when he “just wanted to fit in.”

2. Similarity: for ‘third-culture kids’, losing knowledge of their language also strains their relationship with their forebears. Badami’s mother is shocked to hear the anglicisation of his name despite the significance it carrie for her (“she spat my unreal new name out like something bitter and stringy”), and Tseng describes the experience of communicating with her father in “Chinglish” so that they can both understand each other.

3. Difference: language can be an internalised, personal experience, or a highly exposed and interpersonal one. While Tseng feels her loss of her language as a “sense of shame, a vague unease”, Badami is almost bullied into changing his name, “Sunil? Like banana peel?”

The Clan (Law & Chau)

This section delves into the complex ties that hold migrant families together. Chau’s poems are starkly different to Law’s story, so it’ll be interesting to compare how these different narrative forms work to explore those ideas.

1. Similarity: it can take at least one generation for migrant families to dig their roots into their new home. While Law’s parents are proud tourists at Queensland theme parks, he and his siblings “groan” at their comportment. Chau’s poem ‘The Firstborn’ traces his ancestry forward until he arrived, “an ABC” and his son “by amniotic sea”, both of them born into Australia.

2. Similarity: family dynamics are still traditional and therefore gendered. Law notes how his mother’s health suffered when divorcing his father, and Chau notes that the women members of his family were “cast off” the family tree “as if they were never born.

3. Difference: family history and heritage can vary in importance. Chau’s family traces back “twenty-eight generations” of history, whereas Law’s family very much lives in the present, the only tie to older generations being his “Ma-Ma”, or grandma.

4. Difference: families show their love in different ways. Whether it’s dedicating a poem to his son about his life as one of “ten thousand rivers” of Chinese diaspora into the Australian sea, or taking the kids to theme parks on weekends, all sorts of affection can hold families together.

Putting it together

So I’ve tried to choose two sections (and four stories) that are all a bit different to try and mix it up and get some rich comparative discussion out of these. You might be studying this text alone, but even as one text, remember that there’s a lot of diverse experiences being represented in it, so discussing how stories connect, compare and contrast is just as important as discussing the content of individual stories themselves.

If we do a mini-essay, we might as well go about it properly and pick some sort of contention. Without a fixed prompt though, it might be easier to start with those dot points and pick which ones we want to write out and string together. Let’s pick two—connections to mother tongue fading over time (Strine similarity 1) and digging roots into Australia over time (The Clan similarity 1). A contention covering these points might look like:

While second generation migrants may struggle with loss of culture, they also constitute a unique and significant part of the diaspora.

An example

Many migrants lose connections to their heritage over time, and these connections are often in the form of language. Particularly for Asian migrants, there is not as strong a need to preserve their mother tongue in the English-speaking Australia, and as such their knowledge of those languages can be easily lost. Ivy Tseng, for instance, recalls how she was never able to “grasp the significance” of learning Chinese as a child, and eventually she and her sisters would prioritise “study” and other academic pursuits over learning Chinese. Because tertiary study and education as an institution generally carry a lot of weight in migrant cultures, there is often a compromise made at the expense of heritage and language. These compromises can come from other factors as well, particularly the group dynamics of being in white-dominated Australia. Bullying is a frequent culprit, and Badami for example is indeed peer-pressured into resenting—and ultimately anglicising—his name, “Sunil? Like banana peel?” More generally speaking, a sense of shame for one’s difference is a common part of the migrant experience—Law experiences it as well at theme parks, where he and his siblings attempt to “set [them]selves apart” from the faux-pas of their parents. Not always an intentional goal, but a general willingness to compromise connections to heritage underscores many Asian Australian migrant stories, particularly of second-generation migrants.

However, the extent to which migrants feel socially integrated in society shifts generationally and over time as well. Second generation migrants are thus unique in that they have the closest connection to their heritage while also initiating this process of integration. Law and his siblings exemplify this, with their “Australian accents” and “proper grammar and syntax.” While some loss of their native Cantonese takes place, they are also the first in their family to sound Australian, one step closer to being Australian. They constitute part of the distinct, third culture of “ABC”—Australian-born Chinese—to which Chau alludes in his poem, ‘The Firstborn’. Distinct from first-generation migrants, ABCs are a product of diaspora and spend their formative years immersed in the Australian way of life. Chau’s poem goes on to highlight how sizeable this demographic now is—“the sea is awash with the unfathomable Chinese sons.” Thus, we can see how ABCs, or second generation Asian migrants, represent a unique and significant social group exemplified by great compromise, but also great change.

Why is this useful?/How can I apply this?

I like this exercise because it gets you thinking creatively about the key implications of the stories. Within a section or theme, you want to identify similarities in how both stories contribute to our understanding of that theme. You also want to identify differences to explore how stories can be unique and nuanced, which will provide your essay with more depth when you ultimately need it. Then, putting it all together helps you synthesise new connections between themes.

For an analytical study of this text, you’d flesh out those ideas until they become paragraphs, introducing relevant evidence and mixing it up with explanatory sentences as you go. Explanatory sentences keep you analysing rather than story-telling, and they usually don’t have any quotes—an example from above might be “because tertiary study and education as an institution generally carry a lot of weight in migrant cultures, there is often a compromise made at the expense of heritage and language.”

For a creative study, you’d take away those ideas and look at how else you might explore them in other stories. Feel free to challenge yourself for this; I remember falling back on more personal writing when studying this creatively, but don’t neglect other genres or forms! If second generation migrants are in fact more on their way to belonging, write a speculative story about how an apocalypse tests those connections to white Australians. I dunno, but don’t be afraid to really push the boundaries here and test the implications you draw from the stories.

Give it a go

Try it for some of these:

• UnAustralian? (Loewald & Law) and Leaving Home (Diana Nguyen & Paul Nguyen)
  
• Battlers (Dac & Law/Huynh) and Mates (Phommavanh & Ahmed)
  
• The Folks (Lazaroo & Tran) and Homecoming (Beeby & Larkin)

Growing Up Asian in Australia Essay Prompt Breakdown

Video Transcription

The essay topic we’ll be looking at today is short and sweet;

To belong is to sacrifice. Discuss. 

The key terms are evidently “to belong” and “to sacrifice”, so these are the words and definitions that we’ll have to interrogate. 

Belonging is a feeling of being accepted by someone or being a member of something, so we’d have to ask who is doing the accepting, and what are the writers seeking to be members of. On the other hand, sacrifice is loss, it’s giving something up—it’s implied that seeking belonging means you may have to navigate compromises to what you have, how you live, or maybe, who you are. Have a think about what sacrifices are made by whom, and why.

With that in mind, let’s brainstorm a contention. We usually want to avoid going fully agree or fully disagree to create a bit more ‘grit’ for the essay—and in this case, the prompt is pretty deterministic or absolute; it’s saying that belonging is all about sacrifice. 

I’d probably argue that belonging is sometimes about sacrifice, and for migrant children they often give up some of their culture or heritage for Western lifestyle or values. That being said, belonging in these cases is probably more about synthesis than sacrifice—it’s about being able to negotiate and bring heritage into increasingly Australian ways of life.

The brainstorming section of writing a killer essay is where my THINK and EXECUTE strategy comes in. If you haven’t heard of it before, essentially, it’s a method of essay writing that emphasises the importance of really thinking about all aspects of a prompt and exploring all the different avenues you can go down. To be able to EXECUTE a well-reasoned, coherent and articulate essay that contains enough nitty-gritty analysis, you have to do enough THINKing to get some meat on the essay’s skeleton, so to speak. To learn more, check out my top selling eBook, How To Write A Killer Text Response.

In paragraphs, we could start by looking at some of the sacrifices people make in order to belong. The poem, ’Be Good, Little Migrants’ has a more of a cynical take on this, suggesting that migrant groups are expected to sacrifice economic mobility and even personal dignity in order to gain favour with locals: “give us your faithful service”, “display your gratitude but don’t be heard, don’t be seen.” 

Economic sacrifices are seen across many stories, from the working class “decent enough income” in ‘Family Life’ to the failing business in ‘ABC Supermarket’. Other forms of sacrifice might be less material—for example Benjamin Law’s sacrifice of his Mariah Carey cassettes in an attempt to fit in at school from the story ‘Towards Manhood’. This example is interesting because it isn’t a cultural sacrifice, but a gendered one—it’s a good reminder that identity is always multi-layered. 

For migrant children though, the sacrifices usually revolve around their race and culture. Diana Nguyen for example notes language as a key sacrifice: she quits Vietnamese school because she didn’t feel like she belonged with the grade ones in her class, and her ultimate “lack of interest in learning [Vietnamese] created a lasting barrier” between her mother and her. In Sunil Badami’s story, ‘Sticks and Stones and Such-Like’, the sacrifice is his name, as he Anglicises it to Neil. When his mother finds out, “she spat my unreal new name out like something bitter and stringy, too difficult to swallow.” The common denominator here is that Asians growing up in Australia often have to navigate sacrificing some of their heritage in order to belong in western society. 

However, the challenges faced by the Asian diaspora growing up abroad are more complex and more nuanced than just sacrifice. More often than not, they’re required to synthesise a ‘third culture’ identity that balances their heritage with western values and lifestyles. 

Diana Nguyen goes on to discuss her career trajectory in becoming a “working actor” in Melbourne’s entertainment industry, carving out a path for herself in spite of her parents’ disapproval, and going on to represent a new generation of Asian Australians in the media. The story ‘Wei-Lei and Me’ also points to this shifting demographic in Australia, as Gouvernel and her best friend stave off a racist primary school bully only to see their home change for the better as they grew up, with new restaurants from their home cuisines opening up. At the same time, they “had become what [they] thought [they] could never be: Australian,” describing a way of life in Canberra that is unmistakably Australian. 

So, belonging isn’t necessarily all about sacrifice—it doesn’t mean you can’t pursue your passions or become ‘Australian’. Sure, sometimes sacrifice is necessary, but ‘third culture kids’ synthesise conflicting identities in order to belong. 

Having arrived at the contention, let’s just have another think about the takeaway message - being able to bring other themes into an essay topic that only really raises one theme. To answer this topic fully, a good essay wouldn’t just discuss belonging and sacrifice, but it would also bring in discussion about family, friends, careers and cultures, just to name a few. Hopefully this is something you can translate into your own future work!

Conclusion

Growing Up Asian In Australia is an anthology with a lot to unpack, but there are plenty of unique stories with plenty of interesting links to be made. However you’re learning this text, being able to draw conclusions from stories and extrapolate them into your writing is a really important skill.

As you go, ask yourself about the implications: ‘so what?’ and ‘why?’. These sorts of questions will help you get richer insights and write about the anthology in a more interesting way.

To elaborate further on the example using Macbeth and Animal Farm:

Avoid simply drawing connections between the texts which are immediately obvious. It is clear that both Napoleon and Macbeth are powerful leaders. The questions below start to delve into a more insightful comparison between the two men (comparative words are bolded):

Macbeth and Animal Farm: common theme = power

How do they achieve power?

In Animal Farm, Napoleon is sly about his intentions and slowly secures his power with clever manipulation and propaganda. However, Shakespeare’s Macbeth adopts very different methods as he uses violence and abuse to secure his power.

How do they maintain power?

Both Napoleon and Macbeth are tyrants who go to great length to protect their power. They believe in killing or chasing away anyone who undermines their power.

What is the effect of power on the two characters?

While Macbeth concentrates on Macbeth’s growing guilty conscience and his gradual deterioration to insanity, Animal Farm offers no insight into Napoleon’s stream of consciousness. Instead, George Orwell focuses on the pain and suffering of the animals under Napoleon’s reign. This highlights Shakespeare’s desire to focus on the inner conflict of a man, whereas Orwell depicted the repercussions of a totalitarian regime on those under its ruling.

For one of most popular posts on Comparative (also known as Reading and Comparing), check out our Ultimate Guide to VCE Comparative.