Engelsk afgangseksamen stx

Hej alle

Jeg har idag været til skriftlig engelsk eksamen i engelsk A niveau STX, 3.g afsluttende studentereksamen.. Jeg synes selv, det gik rimelig dårligt! Jeg valgte en non-fiction tekst, skrevet af Russell Brand:" Big Brother is not watching you." Man blev bedt om at analysere og kommentere på hans artikel. Derudover skal ens essay også inkludere skribentens style og attitude.

Jeg er virkelig i vildrede mht. Hvor jeg ligger på karakterskalaen? Nogle der gider kigge den igennem, og give en vurdering? :-)

Jeg håber selv på 7 eller hvis værst, 4 :-) Fx er der ingen indledning, og teksten fylder kun 890 ord - skal fylde 900 til 1200.

Change
Russell Brand has a large range of qualities. Russell Brand possesses the occupation both as an actor, a comedian and a writer. Russell Brand, therefore, has a certain opportunity to make this commentary very humorous and interesting for his receivers, whom are probably the English citizens, according to his manifold talents. In doing so, he has a different way of depicting the central problem with the use of irony, sarcasm and other oddities, for instance on page 1, ll. 7-10: “Except when I worked for Big Brother, then it was my job to slosh about in the amplified trivia of the housmates/inmates. Sometimes it was actually quite bloody interesting. Particularly the year that Nadia won. Remember? No? Well, that’s the nature of the medium.”  Russell Brand uses irony as a stylistic device, to make fun of the way contemporary society has become a platform for several reality TV shows. Russell Brands also uses several anecdotes from his own life and experiences, yet still it is formal. But Russell Brand has a personal language with the use of personal pronouns such as “I,” “We”. That means, he wants to speak directly to his receivers.  Therefore, the attitude, is very personal and wants to affect the receivers and make them reflect, not only on the riots, but also their daily life as well.
Russell Brand writes both about the superficial reality shows and the genuine problem, the riots, at the same time. It is possible to divide the commentary into different sections: the first section(ll.1-20), the second section(ll. 20-63), the third section(ll. 63-91) and then the last section(ll. 92-120), which various from discussing and commenting on politics, philosophy(Gandhi) and the financial crisis in 2008.  As a result, his intention with this commentary starts out a bit vague, since the first section is mostly about criticizing reality shows. However, in section two (l. 23), his intention becomes clear. Russell Brand wants to argue about how the riots should be handled in the aftermath and discuss why they happened and which parameters that caused it.
Furthermore, his message becomes crystal clear in the end: of  “If we want to live in a society where people feel included, we must include them, where they feel represented, we must represent them and where they feel love and compassion for their communities then we, the members of that community, must find love and compassion for them.”(p. 10, ll. 14-17).  This clearly shows the rhetorical situation, Russell Brand, is in: to discuss and argue about how the riots were being dealt with. With the use of anaphor’s, such as “We” used several times, the writer states his intention even more clear. Russell Brand wants people to act on the riots and consider, whether what has been done by the conservative government, is the right solution or there might have been other posterior problems.
Hence, Russell Brand’s approach is not considered from many different angles. He is mostly against David Cameron and the Conservative Party: “ I remember Cameron saying: “hug a hoodie” but I haven’t seen him doing it. Why would he? Hoodies don’t vote, they’ve realised it’s pointless, that whoever gets elected will just be a different shade of the “we don’t give a toss about you” party.”(p. 9, ll. 91-93).Yet, what about the moral aspect? Russell Brand does not state many different opinions. For instance the fact that a citizen should respect and behave in an orderly manner to respect society. Yet, on the other hand, Russell Brand writes, that modern society might also have something to say about the riots. In addition, he comments on consumerism and Russell Brands mentions Margaret Thatcher as a lady, who made it harder for the marginalized to interact in society. To emphasize his point of view on modern society and the break of norms and values, he uses a personal experience where he attended in a anarchist protest: “ I found those protests exiting, yes, because I was young and a bit of a twerp but also, I suppose, because there was a void in me. A lack of direction, a sense that I was not invested in the dominant culture.” (p. 9, ll. 74-75).  In post-modern society this might be relevant, since Russell Bland talks about emptiness and no direction, which is typical for this certain period.   According to Anthony Giddens(English sociologist) and other sociologist there are not the same coherent community as before and we have become more individualized and rootless without standard norms and values.
Even though there are some good statements and arguments, Russell Brands,  points out, that he as a writer, is not reliable, since he states, he does not know anything about politics. Still, he might not be assertive in that way, but with the use of irony he achieves to become very convincing.
Russell Brands wants a coherent society, where it is not about social deprivation yet more about a genuine community where the government focuses on other factors than the moral aspect such as social deprivation. To support his intention he uses irony and sarcasm throughout the commentary as a feature of his style.  Consequently,  he succeeds in convincing that there are a need for a change.