Paper 1, Question 1
The Mind of a Winner
Usain Bolt is a world famous sprinter who describes his winning race for the Olympics. The autobiography is thrilling and emotional all the way until the win.
It begins like the start of any race would with the word ‘Bang!’ in bold. Not only does this make you immediately interested, but it shows that Bolt is also a man with words. The autobiography is written in the form of the race itself, going from beginning to end. Because of this, Bolt has graciously let us be able to clearly see into his thoughts throughout his extraordinary win.
In the opening paragraph, Bolt begins to explain that he is constantly talking ‘garbage’ about himself in every race. This is very relatable to everyone as doubt and fear is something we all experience in everyday life. The single-sentence paragraphs show the true intensity of the race; describing Bolt’s feelings and what he sees.
Reading the autobiography of Usian Bolt takes you through a sprinter's journey of winning the Olympics. It is full of real emotion from a hardworking and determined runner. It surely is not one to get second place.
The autobiography is much different than the newspaper report. Bolt’s writing is split up into many different paragraphs, some only being one sentence. The first word of the text is ‘Bang!’, then goes into a separate paragraph stating, ‘the gun went’. Bolt uses the action word ‘bang’ to get the readers immediately interested. He also uses it as a way to form the autobiography as if it is the race itself. Compared to the newspaper report, the autobiography is much less formal and much more personal. As Bolt is the writer and narrator of his autobiography, the report is just a summarized version of it.
The language in the autobiography is very informal and shows Bolt’s viewpoint directly. He uses phrases like ‘I burst’ and ‘there was me’ showing the first person aspect of the autobiography. The newspaper report is written in the third person as it talks about the autobiography. It is also much more formal as the audience would be those interested in Bolt’s race and himself. The report is meant to only describe and sum-up Bolt’s writing. Bolt describes every part of his race from his own perspective, making the autobiography very intimate and personal for him.
Another difference can be noted with the structure differences. In the autobiography, the paragraphs are split up between the things that actually happened in the race and what Bolt thinks after. For example, some paragraphs are in all italics to show bolts direct thoughts. The onomatopoeia in the first and eleventh lines are in bold and italicized. Lines 14 through 15 are also in all italics to describe the events of his race as they are happening. To do this, Bolt includes his real emotion going through his mind by saying ‘I can’t see’ and ‘blocking my view’. While the entire autobiography is written in the first person, these thoughts are written in the present tense rather than past, making it feel even more like we are with him during his race.
The structure of the newspaper report does not include any onomatopoeia nor is it taking you through a race. The newspaper also keeps the same format throughout the report. There are no italics or bolded words or sentences. The overall structure of the newspaper is formal and the paragraphs are split evenly. There is a title with the newspaper report and not with the autobiography. The lengths of both text’s are also vastly different. The autobiography is much longer with many more paragraphs than the report.
Bolt uses strong words like ‘hell’ to portray the intensity of the race. He also asks himself multiple questions throughout the text to show doubt and insecurities even for an Olympic medalist. This is Bolt’s way of making a connection with the readers. For example, he asked himself in line 37, “Can I chill?” The newspaper report is much different in this aspect. There is no emotion from the writer, nor are details being extensively explained. The report is a summary that uses formal language and structure to portray Bolt’s ideas in the third person.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDelete1(a) Your news article shows that you have a very clear understanding of the autobiography. For example, you talked about the audience’s engagement when Bolt started his writing with ‘Bang!’ You also talk about the relatability of self doubt that Bolt discusses by thinking of himself as ‘garbage’. This is an interesting point that I never thought of. Because of this, for AO1 I am giving you a 4. This response though is not following the prompt. You wrote a newspaper article reviewing the autobiography when the prompt was to write an article about the events that were described. For example, you wrote ‘The autobiography is thrilling and emotional. I have to give you a 1 on the AO2 scale since it lacks relevance to the purpose.
1(b) For AO1 I am giving you a 3. You give a lot of quoted evidence when discussing the autobiography but you do not do the same when you would discuss the newspaper report. This makes the level of context and understanding lower. For example when you talked about lexical choice you wrote about Bolt’s strong and emotional language choice of using the word “hell”. When you talked about the formality of the news article, you only stated that it used formal language. There was no supportive evidence provided. For AO3 I am giving you a 7. While there is the issue mentioned above, the general points provided for the comparison were still well done. For example, the structural analysis of paragraph length and the tense difference that result from the contrasting forms.
Hi, for section AO1, question 1(a), I’m giving you 4 marks. I think that you did a great job talking about the features of the autobiographical text, emphasizing the word “Bang!” that engages the audience in the text, or about his thoughts, as you said, letting us be able “to see into” him. Thanks to all these characteristics you have a detailed understanding of the text. On the other hand, I think that your article did not comply with the prompt reminder, you should have elaborated on the race, on how he managed to win the gold medal, or about the different situations and actions. It is for these reasons that I have to give you 2 marks for AO2.
ReplyDeleteFor question 1(b) I give you a 4 and for AO3, 8 marks. I think your work is well done, the analysis is clear and detailed, and you did a good comparison of the two texts, highlighting the differences in the form and structure, such as the typical conventions used in the original autobiographical extract and in the newspaper article. I liked how you talked about the onomatopeia and the paragraphs italicized, about the emotions that cannot be shown by a newspaper writer. I think you could write more about the colloquial words that are used, such as “dude”, “man”. You did a great job; I liked your analysis.
Hello Caitlyn, I wanted to start by saying that you did not follow the correct prompt. You are describing the autobiography which you read. While the prompt wanted you to act like a journalist, spectating the event and writing the takeaways for a sports section of a newspaper. The information you provide is good for part ‘b’ of the question.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said in AO1 I would give you a 2. The reasoning behind this is that you attract the wrong audience. The audience you attract is for a review of the autobiography, not someone who would end up in the sports section of a newspaper. While you do show a good understanding of the text. You distributed an analysis of the text you read, while they wanted you to use details from the text and apply it to the prompt.
In AO2 I graded you a 1. AO2’s marking criteria are more detailed, and with your writing being off task, you were given a low score. Not only are you attracting the wrong audience, but you are not relevant to the purpose. The purpose was for you to write a report on the race itself, not a review of the autobiography. In the future, make sure you are reading the prompt more than once so that you can fully understand what they are asking from you.
Moving forward with part ‘b’ AO1 I would grade you a 3. In this, you clearly state the differences between your newspaper report and the autobiography. You started on a task and showed that you understood what you had read. Using buzz words like ‘informal/formal’ and ‘onomatopoeia’ helps with your writing. While you did state that the newspaper report was in the ‘third person and was wrong about it, your ability to analyze the autobiography helped you.
Finally, In AO3 I would give you 6 marks. While you show a good understanding of the task in comparing the structure, form, and language of both texts, you should provide more examples and explanations in your newspaper report. This again felt like an analysis of the autobiography with little points here and there on the report. Additionally, you do not address the audience in your report. You call the autobiography ‘personal’ and that the first line the ‘readers immediately interested’, so apply that to the report. The key part of the prompt was to ‘compare.’
Overall good job, just remember to read the prompt.