Question 4: 20 marks
Personal Response

• How does the first person narration affect how we feel about the character?

• What impact do the short sentences have over how the story is read, and the sound of the narrator's voice?

• What impact do the rhetorical questions have over the reader? How do they help create the narrator's character?

• How does the narrator relate to his neighbours, and how do we feel about him?

• How does the narrator describe the boys?

• How does the narrator describe burning of the hornet's nest?

How does the first person narration affect how we feel about the character?
Taking the first person narration allows us to see the story from inside a character's head. They're often most successfully used with characters that we can relate to as they allow the story to be told from a position we know. Here, however, the writer takes us inside someone we might feel less comfortable with. It's unlikely we'll be comfortable inside this person's head, but we're forced there which gives the whole story a sense of discomfort.

What impact do the short sentences have over how the story is read, and the sound of the narrator's voice?
What impact do the rhetorical questions have over the reader? How do they help create the narrator's character?
Both the short sentences and the rhetorical questions are so important to create the character. They make him seem demanding but also simplistic - and there's something that reminds me of a military drill instructor in the way he speaks. It grabs us and tries to force us to look at life through his eyes; and his world view is just so brutal that, again, a lot of people will find it quite uncomfortable. And the fact that we're forced to accept a world view that is so brutal makes us afraid for how the story will turn out - this is not a world where care or compassion have any place.

How does the narrator relate to his neighbours, and how do we feel about him?
The narrator references his "lesser" neighbours and you get the feeling that he is talking about anyone with any care or compassion - which might include a lot of readers! What's definitely clear, however, is that anyone who would leave this job to a professional is weaker and less than him. This is a man who's going to take justice into his own hands and, given how ruthless he is, this makes us immediately nervous.

How does the narrator describe the boys?
He has to "drag" the boys over from playing "some" game speaks volumes about their relationship - they clearly don't want to come, and he has no idea of what they're doing. He calls them "soft" - which is another example of him disliking anyone who shows care or compassion, and another reminder of his drill instructor's attitude - while the line about "teaching them about life and death" seems quite astonishingly harsh on two children, whose ages we don't know. But the really breathtaking thing about this is the realisation that he is doing this because he cares - and this is further heightened by the use of first person which forces us to take his perspective.

How does the narrator describe burning of the hornet's nest?
The Starbucks cup - "grande" - says a lot about the character who's doing this, as does the fact that he "yanks" them back close so they can watch it happen. The reference to the "molotov cocktail for stroller moms" says a lot about how he sees himself as a kind of army man for the suburbs. While the image of the hornets spitting out "like Roman candles" presents us an image of celebration, like they're a firework. Because of our relationship to the arsonist, though, we will most probably find ourselves relating more closely to the hornets than supporting the narrator.

In order to put the answer above together, I used a wide range of skills.

I wrote about the importance of perspective and how that affects the way it's read (this is structure); I wrote about the impact of the short sentences and rhetorical questions (which is also structure); I wrote about language when I explore how the relationship to the neighbours and to the boys, and to the burning of the nest itself.

So really, I didn't do anything new here but what I did was APPRECIATE the scene - AQA call it EVALUATE, but since they're unlikely to offer you something of very little value, appreciate is probably a better word to describe what they're asking for. Arguably this is the most important skill when you're answering this question, because it's not easy to fake.

Appreciating something doesn't just means saying that it's successful, it means showing you've understood why it's successful; it means taking the time to celebrate and appreciate what someone has done, and although I hate to say it, this is much easier to do if you've read a lot before.

A lot of students do this when they read a text - they just say what happened and can't see what else they're supposed to do.

Those of you who like football but not reading, might recognise that just EXPLAINING what happened is the equivalent to taking this iconic moment in footballing history and writing:

Towards the end of the game, the ball was kicked into the area. Someone fell over and then someone else kicked it in the goal. Everyone ran around celebrating.

This is all true - it is true - but it shows no real understanding or appreciation for what was happening on the field. It's like the person who's written this has no understanding about football at all. If you write about a text like this, you just seem like someone who doesn't read and doesn't appreciate what a writer is trying to do. (The bits in red show an understanding of some basic technical terms, but there's a complete lack of understanding.)

This is definitely a step up - analysis means understanding a little more about the techniques that were being used and it requires us to think a little more deeply about what is happening...

The ball was passed to Balotelli, who used his strength to hold off a defender and then slip the ball through to Aguero. Despite the pressure, Aguero dribbled round one man, and then shot past the keeper on his inside post. Manchester City had finally won the title, with the last kick of the season.

This shows some more understanding - the writer here clearly understands what was happening well enough to be able to zoom in on some specific things that were being done - Balotelli using his strength, Aguero dribbling the ball, and there is a reference to the importance of the game.

This requires you to really think about what is happening, from all angles. It requires you to understand and empathise with the intentions of the people involved in producing something; it requires you to think about the impact of the moment on viewers or on the players.

In the game’s dying seconds, in a last push forward, with just seconds left on the clock, Manchester City’s Balotelli received the ball on the edge of QPR’s area. With his back to the goal, he had no choice but to hold off the defender – with the strength that so often marked the best of his game – and somehow, desperately, managed to toe-poke a pass through to the onrushing Sergio Aguero. Showing the strength and skill that mark a truly great attacker, Aguero skips past one man and then hammers the ball inside the keeper’s near post and, in doing so, created what is arguably the Premiere League’s greatest ever moment.

Technical terms used in a way that shows that they are necessary for an understanding of the game, some deeper understanding and, most importantly, some real appreciation for the significance of what is happening.

Anyone who's into football could write an appreciation of that moment - while people who aren't into football would end up struggling! The English exam is basically just like this, only it's with reading. If you're into reading, and you can appreciate something that's well written - and you might even have an opinion on what styles you like and which you don't. If this is the case, you're probably going to be ok with Question 4.

But if you're not into reading, then you're going to need to do a good impression of being into reading, so that you can write an appreciation of a text.

Imagine that the book you've been given is that Aguero moment, and you need to write something that shows a CRITICAL APPRECIATION of it. You need to imagine that you can appreciate what the writer was trying to do, appreciate the strategies they've used to try to achieve this, and talk about it like it had an impact on you.

Also - as a final note - it's unlikely that the text you'll be given will have the same cultural significance of that Aguero moment, so don't just sit there writing about the extract as though it was the greatest thing ever. The extract you'll be given will be the equivalent to the winning goal on a rainy Tuesday against Stoke, so appreciate it but don't feel you have to go overboard!