Contents

1. Summary
2. Themes
3. Symbols and Analysis
4. Quotes
5. Discussion Questions
6. Sample Essay Topics
7. Essay Topic Breakdown

1. Summary

Go Went Gone revolves around an unlikely connection between a retired university professor, Richard, and a group of asylum seekers who come from all over the African continent. While he’s enjoyed a life of stability and privilege as a white male citizen, the lives of these asylum seekers could not be more different: no matter where they are in the world, uncertainty seems to follow. Richard initially sets out to learn their stories, but he is very quickly drawn into their histories of tragedy, as well as their dreams for the future. 

However, the more he tries to help them, the more he realises what he’s up against: a potent mix of stringent legal bureaucracy and the ignorance of his peers. These obstacles are richly interwoven with the novel’s context in post-reunification Germany (more on this under Symbols: Borders), but bureaucracy and ignorance are everywhere - Australia included. This novel, therefore, bears reflection on our own relationship with the refugees who seek protection and opportunity on our shores - refugees who are virtually imprisoned and cut off from the world.

Richard ultimately realises that these men are simply people, people who have the same complexities and inconsistencies as anyone else. They sometimes betray his trust; at other times, they help him in return despite their socio-economic standing. The end of the novel is thus neither perfect nor whole - while the asylum seekers develop a relationship with Richard and vice versa, neither is able to entirely solve the other’s problems, though both learn how to be there for each other in their own ways. We don’t get many solutions to everything the refugees are facing, but what we end up with is a lesson or two in human empathy. 

The title of Jenny Erpenbeck’s novel Go Went Gone is a line she weaves into a couple of scenes. In one example, a group of asylum seekers in a repurposed nursing home learn to conjugate the verb in German. In another, a retired university professor reflects on this group, about to be relocated to another facility.

2. Themes

Privilege

The various privileges Richard holds shape his identity in this text. It shapes how he approaches his retirement for example: now that “he has time”, he plans to spend it on highbrow pursuits like reading Proust and Dostoyevsky or listening to classical music. On the other hand, the asylum seekers sleep most of the time: “if you don’t sleep through half the morning, [a day] can be very long indeed.” Richard has the freedom to choose to spend his time on hobbies, but the asylum seekers face a daunting and seemingly-impossible array of tasks. After getting to know them more, he realises that while his to-do list includes menial things like “schedule repairman for dishwasher”, the refugees face daunting socio-political problems like needing to “eradicate corruption”. 

Freedom in general is a useful way to think about privilege in this text, and besides freedom to choose how you spend your time, this can also look like the freedom to tell your story. While Richard helps the men with this to some degree, even he has a limited amount of power here (and power can be another useful way of thinking about privilege). Richard realises that “people with the freedom to choose…get to decide which stories to hold on to” - and those are the people who get to decide the future of the refugees, at least from a legal perspective. 

Empathy

Though Richard can’t necessarily help with these legal issues, he finds himself doing what he can for the refugees over time. He demonstrates a willingness to help them in quite substantial ways sometimes, for example buying a piece of land in Ghana for Karon and his family. In the end, we see him empathising with the refugees enough to offer them housing: though he is not a lawyer, he still finds ways to use his privilege for good and share what he can. He taps into his networks and finds housing for 147 refugees. 

The tricky thing with empathy though is that it’s never one-sided, not in this book and not in real life either. It’s not simply a case of Richard taking pity on the refugees - we might think of this as sympathy rather than empathy - but he develops complex, reciprocal and ‘real’ friendships with all of them. This can challenge him, and us, and our assumptions about what is right. When Richard loses his wallet at the store, Rufu offers to pay for him. He initially insists he “can’t accept”, but when he does Rufu doesn’t let him pay him back in full. Erpenbeck challenges us to empathise without dehumanising, condescending or assuming anything in the process. 

It’s an interesting way to think about social justice in general, particularly if you consider yourself an ‘ally’ of a marginalised group - how can we walk with people rather than speak for them and what they want?

Movement 

Freedom of movement is sort of a form of privilege, but movement as a theme of its own is substantial enough to need a separate section. There are lots of different forms of movement in the novel, in particular movement between countries. In particular, it’s what brought the refugees to Germany at all, even though they didn’t necessarily have any control over that movement.

Contrast that with Richard’s friends, Jörg and Monika, who holiday in Italy and benefit from “freedom of movement [as] the right to travel”. Through this lens, we can see that this is really more of a luxury that the refugees simply do not have. Refugees experience something closer to forced displacement, rather than free travel, moving from one “temporary place” to the next often outside of their control. In this process, their lack of control often means they lose themselves in the rough-and-tumble of it all: “Becoming foreign. To yourself and others. So that’s what a transition looks like.”

3. Symbols & Analysis

Language and the Law

Many of the barriers faced by the refugees are reflected in their relationships with language; that is, their experiences learning German mirrors and sheds light on their relationship with other elements of German society. For example, there are times when they struggle to concentrate on learning: “It’s difficult to learn a language if you don’t know what it’s for”. This struggle reflects and symbolises the broader problems of uncertainty, unemployment and powerlessness in the men’s lives.

The symbol of language often intersects with the symbol of the “iron law”, so these are discussed together here. It’s hard on the one hand for these men to tell their stories in German, but it’s also hard for the German law to truly grapple with their stories. Indeed, Richard finds that the law doesn’t care if there are wars going on abroad or not: it only cares about “jurisdiction”, and about which country is technically responsible for the refugees. In this sense, the law mirrors and enables the callousness which runs through the halls of power - not to deter you from learning law if you want though! This might just be something to be aware of, and maybe something you’d want to change someday. 

There’s one law mentioned in the novel stating that asylum seekers can simply be accepted “if a country, a government or a mayor so wishes”, but that one word in particular - “if” - puts all the power in lawyers and politicians who know the language and the law and how to navigate it all. These symbols thus reflect power and privilege. 

Borders (+ Historical Context)

Throughout the novel, there’s a sense that borders between countries are somewhat arbitrary things. They can “suddenly become visible” and just as easily disappear; sometimes they’re easy to cross, sometimes they’re impossible to cross. Sometimes it’s easy physically, but harder in other ways - once you cross a border, you need housing, food, employment and so forth.

This complex understanding of borders draws on the history of Germany, and in particular of its capital Berlin, after World War II. After the war, Western powers (USA, UK, France) made a deal with the Soviet Union to each run half of Germany and half of Berlin. The Eastern half of Germany, and the Eastern half of Berlin, fell under Soviet control, and as East Germans started flocking to the West in search of better opportunities (sound familiar?), the Soviets built a wall around East Berlin. The Berlin Wall, built in 1961, became a border of its own, dividing a nation and a city and changing the citizenship of half of Germany overnight. Attempts to escape from the East continued for many years until the wall came down in 1989, changing all those citizenships right back, once again virtually overnight.

This history adds dimension to Erpenbeck’s novel. Refugees pass through many countries, but Erpenbeck draws on Germany’s history specifically as a once-divided nation itself. This helps to illustrate that national borders are just another arbitrary technicality that divides people, at the expense of these refugees. 

Bodies of Water

One motif that comes back a few times in the novel is the drowned man in the lake by Richard’s house. This has a few layers of meaning.

Firstly, the man drowns despite the lake being a perfectly “placid” body of water, and for whatever reason, this bothers Richard immensely: “he can’t avoid seeing the lake”. There’s an interesting contrast here to be drawn between this one death in a still body of water and the hundreds of deaths at sea that are recounted in the novel. Rashid’s stories are particularly confronting: “Under the water I saw all the corpses”. Erpenbeck questions the limits of human empathy - whose deaths are we more affected by, and why - through contrasting these different bodies of water, and those who die within them. Richard is more affected than most, who visit the lake all summer leaving “just as happy as they came” - but even he has his limits with how much he can see and understand. 

The next layer of meaning with this symbol then is more around the surface of the water itself: it is significant that in Rashid’s story, the casualties are below the surface. This reflects the common saying, “the tip of the iceberg” - the survivors who make it to Europe are really just the tip of the iceberg, only representing a fraction of the refugee experience. Often, that experience ends in death. Erpenbeck asks us to keep looking beneath the surface in order to empathise in full. 

Music and the Piano

This symbol is specific to Richard’s relationship with Osarobo, to whom he teaches the piano. There’s one scene where this symbolism is particularly powerful, where they watch videos of pianists “us[ing] the black and white keys to tell stories that have nothing at all to do with the keys’ colours.”

It speaks to the power of music to bring people together, and also to the importance of storytelling in any form: Rosa Canales argues the keys’ colours, and the colour of the fingers playing them, “become irrelevant to the stories emanating from beneath them”.

4. Quotes

Language

• “What languages can you speak?”
• “The German language is my bridge into this country” 
• “Empty phrases signify politeness in a language which neither of them is at home” 

Privilege

• “The things you’ve experienced become baggage you can’t get rid of, while others - people with the freedom to choose - get to decide which stories to hold on to”
• “He hears Apollo’s voice saying: They give us money, but what I really want is work. He hears Tristan’s voice saying: Poco lavoro. He hears the voice of Osaboro, the piano player, saying: Yes, I want to work but it is not allowed. The refugees’ protest has created half-time jobs for at least twelve Germans thus far” 

Borders

• “Not so long ago, Richard thinks, this story of going abroad to find one's fortune was a German one”
• “Is it a rift between Black and White? Or Poor and Rich?” 
• “Where can a person go when he doesn't know where to go?” 

5. Discussion Questions

Here are some questions to think about before diving into essay-writing. There’s no right or wrong answer to any of these, and most will draw on your own experiences or reflections anyway. You may want to write some answers down, and brainstorm links between your responses and the novel. These reflections could be particularly useful if you’re writing a creative response to the text, but they’re also a really good way to get some personal perspective and apply the themes and lessons of this novel into your own life.

• Where do you ‘sit’ in the world? What privileges do you have or lack? What can you do that others cannot, and what can others do that you cannot?
• Think about the times you’ve travelled around the world - how many of those times were by choice? What might be the impact of moving across the world against your will?
• How do you show empathy to others? How do you receive empathy from others? What is that relationship ‘supposed’ to look like?
• What are some different names for where you live? How can you describe the same place in different languages or words? If you’re in Australia, what was your area called before 1788?
• Have you ever learned or spoken a language other than English? What language do you find easier to write, speak and think with? How might this impact someone’s ability to participate in different parts of life (school, work, friendships etc.)?

6. Sample Essay Topics

• Go Went Gone teaches us that anyone can be empathetic. Discuss. 
• In Go Went Gone, Erpenbeck argues that storytelling can be powerful but only to an extent. Do you agree?
• How does Erpenbeck explore the different ways people see time? 
• It’s possible to sympathise with Richard despite his relative privilege. Do you agree?
• Discuss the symbolic use of borders in Go Went Gone.
• Go Went Gone argues that the law is impartial. To what extent do you agree?
• “The German language is my bridge into this country.” How is language a privilege in Go Went Gone?
• Who are the protagonists and antagonists of Go Went Gone?
• Go Went Gone shows that it is impossible to truly understand another person’s experiences. To what extent do you agree?
• In what ways do the people Richard meets challenge his assumptions about the world?
• Go Went Gone is less about borders between countries than it is about borders between people. Do you agree?

7. Essay Topic Breakdown

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. This essay topic breakdown will focus on the THINK part of the strategy. If you’re unfamiliar with this strategy, then check it out in How To Write A Killer Text Response.

Within the THINK strategy, we have 3 steps, or ABC. These ABC components are:

Step 1: Analyse

Step 2: Brainstorm

Step 3: Create a Plan

In what ways do the people Richard meets challenge his assumptions about the world?

Step 1: Analyse

This prompt alludes to certain assumptions that Richard might make about the world. If it’s hard to think of these off the top of your head, consider where our assumptions about the world come from: maybe from our jobs, our families and friends or our past experiences. Maybe there are some assumptions you’ve had in the past that you’ve since noticed or challenged. 

Then it asks us how the people Richard meets challenges those assumptions. There’s no way to get out of this question without discussing the refugees, so this will inform our brainstorm.

Step 2: Brainstorm

I think some of Richard’s assumptions at the beginning come from his status: being a professor emeritus makes you pretty elite, and he can’t really empathise with the refugees because his experiences of life are so different. Part of the challenge with this prompt might be to break down what life experiences entail, and where those differences lie: particularly because it’s asking us ‘in what ways’. These experiences could be with language, employment, or personal relationships just to name a few ideas. 

Step 3: Create a Plan

Because Richard’s life experiences are so vastly different, I’d contend that his assumptions are challenged in basically every way. However, I also think that his interest in the refugees exists because he knows they can challenge his assumptions. I want to use the motif of water surfaces to tie this argument together, particularly in the topic sentences, and this could look as follows:

Paragraph 1: Richard realises that he only has a ‘surface-level’ appreciation of the refugees’ life experiences.

• He realises that he knows little about the African continent (“Nigeria has a coast?”) 
• He suffers from a “poverty of experience” which means he hasn’t had to interact with this knowledge before
• His renaming of the refugees (Apollo, Tristan etc.) suggests that he still needs his own frame of reference to understand their experiences
• He learns about the hardships of migration through the tragic stories of those like Rashid

Paragraph 2: He also realises that he has a ‘surface-level’ understanding of migration in general.

• This comes from the fact that he has never actually moved countries; he’s only been reclassified as an East German, and then again as a German. Neither happened because he wanted them to.
• On the other hand, the refugees want to settle in Europe: they want the right to work and make a living - it’s just that the “iron law” acts as a major barrier. Their powerlessness is different from Richard’s.
• Part of migration is also learning the language, and Richard is initially quite ignorant about this: he observes that the Ethiopian German teacher “for whatever reason speaks excellent German”, not realising this is necessary for any migrant to survive in the new country.
• We can think of this as the difference between migration and diaspora, the specific term for the dispersion of a people.

Paragraph 3: Richard is more open than most people to looking beneath the surface though, meaning that his assumptions are challenged partly because he is willing for them to be.

• The symbol of the lake works well here to explain this: he is bothered by its still surface, and what lies underneath, while others aren’t
• We can also contrast this to characters like Monika and Jörg who remain quite ignorant the whole time: Richard’s views have departed from this throughout the course of the novel
• Ultimately, the novel is about visibility: Richard’s incorrect assumptions mean that he isn’t seeing reality, and his “research project” is all about making that reality visible. 

‍Go Went Gone is usually studied in the Australian curriculum under Area of Study 1 - Text Response. For a detailed guide on Text Response, check out our Ultimate Guide to VCE Text Response.

Video Transcription

Introduction to Animal Farm:

- Written in 1945 by George Orwell, Animal Farm is an allegorical novella about the 1917 Russian Revolution and the repressive Stalinist period which followed.

- As a democratic socialist, Orwell was an adamant critic of Joseph Stalin and his totalitarian dictatorship over Russia.  

- Thus, Orwell wrote Animal Farm as a satirical fable against Stalin’s tyrannical control, stating that he wrote it with the intention of ‘fusing political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole’.

Setting:

- The novella is set in Manor Farm, located in Willingdon, England at an undisclosed time.

- As the events of Animal Farm symbolise the power struggle of early 20th century Russia, this ambiguity of time is intended to prevent Orwell’s warning against repressive tyranny from becoming dated.

- Orwell’s use of a farm as the main setting is also notable, as farms represent nations in Animal Farm; both require a vast amount of work in order to function properly. Thus, the act of the animals cooperating to cast the humans out of the farm symbolises a workers’ revolution against their oppressive leadership.

Main Character Analysis:

Napoleon (pig):

- Based on Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, he emerges as the leader of the Farm after the Rebellion.

- He consolidates his control over the farm with the violent force of his nine attack dogs, having raised them as puppies; these directly symbolise Stalin’s military force.

- He never contributes to other animals’ efforts at revolution, as he is only a corrupt individual who seeks to take advantage of opportunities created for him by others.

Snowball (pig):

- Based on Soviet rebel Leon Trotsky, he challenges Napoleon for control of the Farm after he takes control of the leadership.

- Similar to the leader he is modelled after, Snowball is eloquent, charismatic, intelligent and persuasive - thus, he wins the loyalty and support of other animals easily.

Boxer (cart-horse):

- Extremely devoted to the farm and the Rebellion, Boxer symbolises what Orwell believed to be the best qualities of the proletariat, or the exploited working class, such as loyalty, strength, camaraderie and hard work, perceivable by his personal motto of ‘I will work harder’.

- However, he simultaneously suffers from typical weakness of the working class, such as a naive trust in the intelligentsia and a slow-witted oblivion to political corruption, represented by his other motto of ‘Napoleon is always right’.

Squealer (pig):

- Manipulative and highly persuasive, he spreads Napoleon’s propaganda throughout the farm to intimidate uneducated animals into supporting Napoleon’s ideas and policies.

- Orwell uses the character of Squealer to warn against politicians’ deliberate manipulation of mass media in order to gain social and political control.

Old Major (boar):

- Based on the socialist revolutionary Karl Marx, as well as Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin, Old Major’s dream of a socialist utopia acts as a major motive for the Rebellion.

- Major’s death creates a political vacuum in the farm, leaving Napoleon and Snowball in a power struggle for control of his followers.

Themes and Motifs:

Tyranny:

- By allegorising in Napoleon dictator Joseph Stalin, Animal Farm is first and foremost a satirical critique of politicians’ tyrannical misuse of power.

- This is epitomised by the deceitful methods Napoleon uses to gain support, such as lying to the other animals that Snowball is a political traitor in order to banish him from the Farm.

Naive Proletariat:

- Animal Farm explores the need for the working class to be educated, as the inability of the farm animals to question Napoleon’s authority directly leads to the perpetuation of his oppression.

- Thus, Orwell presents to his readership that the working class may suffer not only due to dictators’ abuse of power, but also from their own naive unwillingness to question the intentions of the authority.

False Allegiance:

- Orwell accurately exhibits treacherous aspects of the human condition in his portrayal of dramatised relationships between humans and animals.

- Just as the pig rulers of the rebellion eventually betray their own idealistic visions, the theme of alliance is shattered between Frederick and Napoleon when the latter learns that the former has been forging banknotes while buying firewood from him.

- Thus, Animal Farm depicts the idea that alliances formed in a tyrannical dictatorship are merely veneers of camaraderie, which hide each person’s capability to destroy others in their path towards control.

Analysis of Quotes:

‘Four legs good, two legs bad.’

- From Chapter 3, this slogan is based off of Old Major’s speech before his death about the need for animals to unite in the face of human oppression and tyranny.

- The quote is a noteworthy example of propaganda in Animal Farm, as the leaders utilise language in order to essentially brainwash the working class animals.

- Although it initially helps the animals to remember their goals, the phrase later loses its meaning of solidarity as it becomes a nonsensical noise made by sheep when used to drown out the voices of challengers to the regime.

‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.’

- This quote exemplifies the pigs’ abuse of logic and language to keep their power over their followers.

- The evidently senseless and illogical meaning behind this phrase is an example of the methods that the leader of the Farm takes in order to brainwash his followers.

- The quote also suggests that the pigs’ real intention to create an animal utopia is not, in fact, to rise up against the oppression of the humans, but to become part of the elite; the ‘some’ that possess greater rights and power than the rest of the underprivileged society.

‍

5 Types of Essay Prompts

Your approach to each essay will depend on what type of prompt is being asked. Be aware that not all essay prompts are the same, which means that sometimes your preferred essay structure simply won’t suit the type of prompt asked. That's why it's important to be aware of the 5 types of essay topics – what you should watch out for and how you could approach your essay writing. The topics used in this blog post have been curated by Lisa's Study Guides.

1. Theme-based prompts :

Animal Farm is first and foremost a satirical critique of politicians’ tyrannical misuse of power.

Usually your paragraphs will be based around particular themes. For example in this case, paragraphs may be based on ‘love’, ‘escape’, ‘horrors of war’ etc. These paragraphs can have character discussions embedded within them in order to demonstrate how the characters represent each theme. Discussion of the author’s choice of language such as symbols or imagery can be essential to the analysis of a theme.

2. Character-based prompts :

Boxer is the only animal with redeeming qualities. Do you agree?

These prompts focus on one or more characters. In this case, you can structure your essay paragraphs based on particular characters or something in common with a set of characters. Essays can become quite repetitive if each paragraph is based around one character so try to add in discussion about themes or the character’s relationships with other characters. Remember that minor characters can be just as important as major characters.

3. How-based prompts : 

How does Napoleon exert control over the farm?

These prompts are usually structured, ‘how does the character do this,’ or 'how does the author do this'. In this case, since the prompt is focused on one main character, try to weave in the main character’s interactions with other characters and how other characters influenced them.

4. Metalanguage-based prompts :

The language in Animal Farm is crucial to Orwell's storytelling.

These types of prompts are the rarest of the 5 prompts but don’t be surprised if you’re asked one. They focus more on the language part of the text; rather than the plot, themes or characters. Your discussion will revolve around the author’s use of language (metaphors, prose, syntax etc.). These discussions are typically viewed as ‘harder’ prompts because you need to think about how the author achieves a particular message about character or theme through their choice of words. Check out our blog post on metalanguage and what you need to look out for.

Extra helpful resource by the BBC: Form, structure and language in Animal Farm.

‍

5. Quote prompts :

'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.’ How is this true in Animal Farm?

These prompts can be character- or theme-based. However, it differs from other essay topics because it includes a direct quote from the text. Remember that the quote is part of the prompt, so ensure that you address it. One of the best ways of doing so is to incorporate the quote into the essay itself.

When faced with unknown prompts in a SAC or your exam, it's reassuring to have a formulaic breakdown of the prompt so that your brain immediately starts categorising the prompt - which of the 5 types of prompts does this one in front of me fall into?

To learn more, I discuss this and offer you practical strategies (so you never mind-blank again!) in my ebook, How To Write A Killer Text Response. Feel free to check it out, and good luck!

‍

‍

Contention and Topic Sentences

We are well into the second half of Semester 1 and for Year 12 students, the Mt Everest that is the final English examination is approximately 6 months away. Though most students are at this stage comfortable with the text response aspect of English, many tend to struggle with the notion of “answering the prompt”.

When working to correct this issue, it is important to understand the VCAA English Study Design brief for text response which outlines its examination criteria as being:

• detailed knowledge and understanding of the selected text, demonstrated appropriately in response to the task
• development in the writing of a coherent and effective structure in response to the task
• control in the use of expressive and effective language appropriate to the task.

To find out more about how to satisfy the VCAA criteria in your Text Response, as well as a sample essay doing so, check out our Ultimate Guide to VCE Text Response.

The importance of answering the prompt is stressed in each of the 3 listed points in the rubric which share the common theme of following the assigned task. In order to construct an essay which successfully answers the prompt, one must be conscious of the relationship between the prompt assigned, their stated contention and the topic sentences they provide.

Prompts for Section A are divided into one of five categories. To learn more about LSG's Five Types Technique, check out our blog.

The first thing one should do when presented with a prompt is analyse it by identifying the keywords of the prompt and clarifying all the key terms. Once this has been done, it is time to formulate a contention. 

A contention is simply your view of the prompt. This is where you challenge the statement presented to you and construct a viewpoint outlining the degree to which you are in agreement or disagreement with the prompt or if you are sitting on the fence. It is vital to do this not by blatantly rewording the prompt to display your stance, instead you must observe the prompt and construct an assessment of the prompt by drawing from the text to confirm your contention. It is through your contention that your points of discussion detailed in your topic sentences are formed.

Points to remember:

• do not explicitly say “I agree” or “I disagree”
• rather demonstrate how you feel (and thus how you are going to write) by using the text to highlight your opinion of the prompt
• use your contention as “umbrella” from which your body paragraph ideas fall under

The next step in developing your essay response is to settle on what points to make in your body paragraphs and write topic sentences. Topic sentences outline the content you will be presenting to your teacher or examiner in the particular body paragraph. A good topic sentence should detail an idea that can be drawn from your contention. A habit some students carry into Year 12 from earlier years of essay writing is to write body paragraphs solely on characters and in turn writing a topic sentence stating which character they will write about in that paragraph. Rather than doing this, focus on the context, themes, symbols and conventions particular character(s) feature in throughout the text.

Points to remember:

• ensure your topic sentence clearly indicates what you will discuss in your paragraph
• check to make sure your topic sentence is an idea that stems from your contention
• avoid character based topic sentences and focus on the themes these characters are utilised to explore

The key to adhering to the prompt presented to you is forming a relationship between the material given to you, your adopted contention and the topic sentences which headline your evidence and justification. Think of the prompt as the avenue through which to form your overall stance. Your contention is the basis of the entirety of your essay. Your topic sentences are opening statements written with the purpose of helping you develop a discussion that follows your contention that is in relation to the prompt. When your text response has evidence of this not only will you present an essay that closely addresses the prompt, but your work will reflect your thoughts, in a manner which efficiently enables you to show off your skills.

Updated on 25/12/2020

Being one of the few texts that was added to the text list this year, Euripides’ play Women of Troy is definitely a daunting task for English and EAL students to tackle due to the lack of resources and essay prompts available. In fact, the only materials that can be found on the internet are those analysing the older translation of the play (titled The Trojan Women). That is why we are here to help you as much as we can by offering you a mini-guide for Women of Troy, in the hope that you can get a head start with this play.

Women of Troy is usually studied in the Australian curriculum under Area of Study 1 - Text Response. For a detailed guide on Text Response, check out our Ultimate Guide to VCE Text Response.

Contents

1. Summary
2. Historical Context
3. Literary Devices
4. Themes
5. Characters
6. LSG-Curated Essay Topics
7. A+ Essay Topic Breakdown
8. Extra Resources

1. Summary

Women of Troy is a tragedy which takes place in the immediate aftermath of the Trojan war, critiquing the atrocities committed by the Greeks to both people of Melos and Troy. By constructing a play in which women are able to dominate the stage and exude their genuine despair in response to their impending enslavement, Euripides shifts the perspectives from epic tales of Greek and Trojan male heroes to the conversely affected women who suffered at the hands of the heroes, while simultaneously providing both the contemporary and modern audience with a unique insight into the true cost of war. This is especially significant because the society was pervaded by patriarchal values, where women were subordinated to their male counterparts. Euripides’ proto-feminist works were not well received by his peers at the time of writing as women’s personal thoughts and pain were not commonly discussed in the Hellenic repertoire.

2. Historical Context

The Trojan war occurred as a result of the conflict between Greece and Troy and was said to last for over 10 years. According to a tale, during a festival on the Olympus, Athena, Aphrodite and Hera were fighting over a golden apple. They chose a random mortal, which was Paris who would then be the Prince of Troy, to decide who the most beautiful goddess of the three was. As a reward for picking her, Aphrodite promised Paris that he would be married to the most beautiful woman in the world, which was Helen – wife of Menelaus, the Spartan prince. Aphrodite had her son Eros (a cupid) enchant Helen and Paris so that they would fall endlessly in love with each other. Helen then escaped from Menelaus’ palace to be with Paris, starting the war between Greece and Troy. Menelaus was enraged and he convinced his brother Agamemnon to lead an expedition to retrieve Helen. The Greek army was commanded to attack the Trojans. The siege lasted for more than 10 years until the Greeks came up with a strategy to abduct Helen from the palace. The Greek soldiers build a giant wooden horse and hid in there to get in the citadel of Troy, attacking them in the middle of the night and winning the war. After the war, the Greek heroes slowly made their way home, however, the journey home was not easy. Odysseus took 10 years to make the arduous journey home to Ithaca because Poseidon agreed to punish the Greeks for the atrocities committed before and after their victory.

3. Themes

War

Love and Lust

Euripides’ works often warn the audience of the detrimental effects brought on by excessive passion, asserting that it is best to moderate emotions and exhibit sophrosyne (the power of self-control over one’s emotions). He often criticises the goddess of love, Aphrodite, for enchanting mortals and leading them into a life governed by love and lust. In this play, he purports that it is inherently Aphrodite’s fault that the Trojans are fighting against the Greeks, as it is Aphrodite who makes Paris and Helen endlessly fall in love with each other.

Potential Textual Evidence:

In Women of Troy, Euripides presents a particularly acerbic critique on Menelaus’ 'uncontrollable lust' in 'sen[ding] a hunting party to track down Helen' as he juxtaposes the cost of the Trojan war being and the prize that they receive.

• 'tens of thousands dead'  
• 'giving up the pleasure of his family and children'
• 'these Greeks [beginning] to die'

→ All that in exchange for one woman - Helen

His chastisement is further bolstered by Cassandra’s rhetorical question asking 'they kept on dying, for what reason'. This manoeuvres the audience into acknowledging the pointlessness of the Trojan war as it is not worth risking so many lives over Helen or any minor military conflict. In doing so, Euripides once again lambastes the actions of those vindictive and bloodthirsty Greeks.

Cost of War

The play primarily focuses on the loss and pain of the Trojan civilians that survived the war, are sieged in the city after the war and are eventually either killed or enslaved after the fall of Troy. While the Trojan war is the setting of many famous classical works being examined by various different angles, not many focus on the consequences suffered by women. This enables Euripides to raise the question of whether or not such victory is worth fighting for while simultaneously inviting the audience to emulate the playwright’s disapprobation of such a violent and brutal resolution of conflict.

You can also use the evidence from the above to justify your arguments on the cost of war. They all aim to magnify the extent to which the Trojan people, as well as the Greeks, have to suffer as result of this pointless war.

Potential Textual Evidence:

We can also discuss how wars affect beliefs and their people’s faith. In the Hellenic society, gods have always been a significant part of their life as it is believed that mortals’ lives are always under the influence of divine intervention. This is evidenced through the ways in which Hellenic people build temples and make sacrifices to the gods, thanking the gods for allowing them to live prosperous lives and begging for their forgiveness whenever they wrong others. This is why it is significant when Hecuba referred to the gods as 'betrayers' in her lamentation, implying that there is a change in attitude in time of tragedy. Events such as this make people question their fate and belief, galvanising them to wonder 'what good [gods] were to [them].

Integrity and Sense of Duty

Some characters in Women of Troy are also fundamentally driven by their sense of duty and integrity, and act according to their moral code regardless of what the circumstances may be. Hecuba, for instance, sympathises with the Chorus of Troy and acts as a leader even when she loses her title and her home. She is held responsible for her actions but is still governed by her honesty and integrity as Helen makes her plea. Talthybius is also governed by both his sense of duty and integrity. Despite his understanding of Hecuba’s circumstances, he still follows his order and ensures that the Trojan women are allocated to their Greek households. However, he does not disregard her sense of morality and treats Hecuba with understanding and sensitivity.

Helen, on the other hand, does not demonstrate the same degree of moral uprightness. In time of tragedy, she chooses to lie and shift the blame to others to escape her execution. She prioritises her own benefits over everyone else’s and allows thousands of others to suffer from the impacts of her treachery in eloping with Paris.

God/Fate

The prologue of the play opens with a conversation between Poseidon and Athena, foreshadowing their divine retribution against the Greeks. Witnessing the immediate aftermath of the Trojan war, they curse the war which they ironically themselves initiated, thus condemning the horrific injustice of the conflict and the actions of its vengeful and blood thirsty so-called heroes. This is evidenced through the ways in which they punished Odysseus by creating obstacles on his journey home.

However, it can also be argued that the gods in Women of Troy themselves act as a symbol of injustice in a way. From the feminist view, the fall of Troy and the enslavement of Trojan women demonstrate the gods’ lack of care as they disregard the monstrosities that occur to women after the Greeks’ victory. The divine intervention which is promised in the beginning casts the following injustices cursed upon the women of Troy in a different light as it can be argued that the gods caused the war. While their retribution against the Greeks can be seen as a means to punish the heroes, it is evident that that they are more concerned about the sacrilege committed and the disrespect they receive after the Trojan war than the injustices suffered by women. This thereby humanises the gods and fortifies the notion that they also have personal flaws and are governed by their ego and hubris.

The idea that there are forces beyond human control is enhanced, and Poseidon and Athena’s pride proves that humans are just innocent bystanders at the mercy of the gods. It can be argued that the chain of unfortunate events are unpredictable as they are determined by gods, whose emotions and prejudices still control the way they act. On the other hand, the characters in the play do at times make choices that would lead to their downfall and tragic consequences. For instance, it is Menelaus who decided to go after the Trojans just because of one woman and he was not enchanted or under any influence of divine intervention.

Gender Roles

Euripides centres his play on Trojan women, enabling the discussion on the cause and effect of war. Given that females' points of view were not commonly expressed in plays or any forms of art works, Euripides’ decision to have his play focus on women allows the Athenian audience, comprised of mainly male Athenians, to observe a part of the military conflict that was not seen before.

The protagonist Hecuba, for example, is portrayed as the archetypal mother. While this image is presented during the aftermath of the Trojan war, Euripides also uses Hecuba as a representative of contemporary Hellenic women as this archetype is universal for all circumstances. It is evident that Euripides’ play mainly focuses on Hecuba’s grief, with her lamentation dominating the prologue. This implies that the protagonist, in this instance, also acts as a diatribe against the patriarchal society which allows women to suffer greatly as a result of war and military conflict. However, this play differs from other plays written by Euripides in that he also explores a woman’s burden and responsibility as a leader, allowing the audience to understand the difficulties of being a woman of power in time of crisis.

4. Characters

Hecuba

Mother of Troy

Potential Textual Evidence:

• In employing the simile comparing herself to 'a mother bird at her plundered nest', Hecuba reminds the audience of her endless love for the city of Troy, implying that the devastation of her own home also further deepens her pain. In this scene, Hecuba is portrayed as a female leader who rules with her passion and love.  
• The image her (Hecuba) as an empathetic Queen is also exemplified through the ways in which she 'weep[s] for [her] burning home'. As the term 'home' invokes connotations of warmth and affection, Hecuba’s endearment for the city she governs is established, accentuating the portrayal of Hecuba as a leader with a passion for her duties.
• This in turn propels the audience to be more inclined to feel commiseration for her when she is held responsible for her city’s destruction. As the representative of Troy’s leadership that enables such brutality to occur leading to the wars, Hecuba bears the guilt and responsibility for '[giving] birth to all the trouble by giving birth to Paris' and consequently, for the cataclysmic consequences that ramified from Paris’ involvement with Helen (although she is simply an innocent bystander) → Social accountability for war

Mother of Her Children

Potential Textual Evidence:

• From the outset of the play, the former queen of Troy is portrayed as a miserable mother suffering from the loss of her own children and 'howl[ing] for her children dead' (echoed by the Chorus, referred to as 'howl of agony'). By employing animalistic language in describing Hecuba’s act of mourning over Hector’s death, Euripides intensifies the magnitude of her emotional turmoil as it is likened to a loud and doleful cry usually uttered by animals → It is almost not humanly possible to endure so much pain.
• This notion is bolstered by the image of Hecuba drowning in 'her threnody of tears' as it engages the pathos of the audience, establishing her as a victim of war and emphasising the poignant story that is to be unveiled.
• The simile comparing herself to a woman 'dragged as a slave' in her lamentation further fortifies Hecuba’s portrayal as a victim of a play. Here, the juxtaposition between her former title 'by birth [as] Troy’s...Queen' and her current state magnifies the drastic change in life and the loss she suffered, compelling the audience to better sympathise with Hecuba. → Powers can be ephemeral in times of crisis.

Talthybius

Talthybius is sympathetic towards women, establishing himself as a complicated figure with a strong sense of integrity. This is epitomised through the ways in which he employs euphemistic language when announcing the dreadful news to Hecuba. He tries his best to be sensitive and mitigate the impacts of Hecuba’s daughter death to her, announcing that Polyxena 'is to serve Achilles at his tomb' and that 'her fate is settled', 'all her troubles are over'. He was being sensitive and subtle instead of abruptly delivering the news. While he represents an enemy state, he shows that men can also be compassionate, contradicting the Phallocentric belief that men should only be governed by cool logic.

Chorus of Trojan Women

It can be argued that Hecuba acts as the paradigm of the Trojan women as her pain (i.e. the deaths of her children, slavery, the devastation of her city), in a way, represents the suffering of the majority of Hellenic women in times of war, which enhances Euripides’ condemnation of a society where military conflicts can easily be facilitated. The Chorus of the play often echoes her deepest pain, establishing a sense of camaraderie between female characters of the play.

In this play, the Chorus acts as the voice of the 'wretched women of Troy', representing the views of the unspoken who are objectified and mistreated by their male counterparts. After Troy lost the war, women were seen as conquests and were traded as slaves, exposing the unfair ethos of a society that was seen as the cradle of civilisation. By allowing the Trojan women to express their indignation and enmity as a response to their impending slavery, Euripides is able to present a critique on the ways in which women were oppressed in Ancient Greece.

5. Literary Devices

• Simile (e.g. dragged as a slave)
• Euphemism (e.g. serve Achilles at his tomb – euphemism for death)
• Symbolism (e.g. Hector’s shield or Troy’s citadel)
• Animal imagery (e.g. howl of agony)
• Rhetorical question (e.g. for what reason)

Why are these important? Watch how we integrated literary devices as pieces of evidence in this essay topic breakdown:

[Modified Video Transcription]

TIP: See section '7. A+ Essay Topic Breakdown' (below) for an explanation of our ABC approach so that you understand how we've actually tackled this essay prompt.

Staged in a patriarchal society, Women of Troy was set during the immediate aftermath of the Trojan war – a war between the Greeks and the Trojans. Hecuba is the former queen of Troy, who suffered so much loss as the mother of her children as well as the mother of Troy. She lost her son Hector and her husband in the Trojan war, her daughter Polyxena also died and Cassandra was raped. After the Greeks won, women were allocated to Greek households and forced into slavery, including the queen of Troy.  She was also the mother of Paris, the prince of Troy. It was purported that Paris and Helen were responsible for initiating the war as Helen was governed by her lust for Paris and left Menelaus, the Spartan prince, for this young prince of Troy. Consequently, Menelaus was enraged by this elopement and declared that he wanted Helen dead as a punishment for her disloyalty. Helen defended herself and lied that it was against her will, crying that she was kidnapped and blamed Hecuba for the fall of Troy and for the conflict between the two sides. However, Menelaus did not believe what Helen had to say and decided to bring her back to her home on a separate ship.

The play ended with the Greek ships leaving Troy, which was then on fire. The Trojan were singing a sad song together as they left to prepare for their new lives as slaves living in Greek households.

The play’s main focus is on the suffering of women, as exemplified by the way Euripides chose to portray Hecuba’s loss and Cassandra’s helplessness.

So, our essay prompt for today is

'How does Euripides use the structure of the play to explore the role of women and their suffering in time of war?'

This is indeed one of the more challenging prompts that VCAA wouldn’t probably give, the reason being that it is a language/structure-based prompt. It requires you to have a much more profound knowledge of the text, and it is not always easy to spot language features, especially in a poetic sounding play like Women of Troy. There is just so much going on in the text! While it is not super likely that you will get this prompt for the exam, I have seen a lot of schools give language/structure-based prompts to students for SACs as it gives them an opportunity to challenge themselves and look for textual evidence that will distinguish them from their peers. These types of evidence are definitely worth looking for because they can also be used as evidence to back up your arguments for theme-based or character-based prompts (learn more about the different types of prompts in How To Write A Killer Text Response).

Now let’s get started.

Step 1: Analyse

The first thing I always do is to look for keywords. The key words in this prompt are 'structure, 'role of women' and 'suffering'.

With the structure of the play, we can potentially talk about:

• Character-related evidence (e.g. strong female character base)
• Language-related features (metalanguage/literacy devices)
• Plot-related features (order of events) – irony, foreshadowing

Step 2: Brainstorm

In a male-dominated, patriarchal society, women are oftentimes oppressed and seen as inferior. Their roles in the society were limited, they were only seen as domestic housewives and mothers. It is important to look for evidence that either supports or contradicts this statement. Ask yourself:

• Is Euripides trying to support the statement and agree that women are simply creatures of emotions who should only stick with domestic duties?
• Or is he trying to criticise this belief by showing that women are so much more than just those being governed by their emotions?

Since this play primarily focuses on the cost of war and how women, as innocent bystanders, have to suffer as a result of the Trojan war, it should not be difficult finding evidence related to women’s suffering. It might include:

• Hecuba’s loss (she lost her home and children)
• Hecuba’s pain (being blamed for Troy’s ruin)
• Cassandra’s helplessness despite knowing her fate, surrendering and accepting her future
• Andromache’s 'bitter' fate having to give up her child
• The Chorus voicing their opinion – slavery

Once a prompt is carefully broken down, it is no longer that scary because all we have to do now is organise our thoughts and write our topic sentences.

Step 3: Create a Plan

P1: Euripides constructs a strong female character base to contradict the prevailing views of the period that women are inferior to their male counterparts.

It is significant that Euripides chose to have a strong female protagonist, as the character herself acts as a diatribe against the patriarchal society, contradicting any engrained beliefs that pervaded the society at the time. An example of evidence that can support this statement is the way in which Hecuba dominates the stage while giving her opening lamentation. The lengthy nature of the monologue itself enables Euripides to present his proto-feminist ideas and go against the Hellenic gendered prejudice.

We can also talk about Hecuba’s leadership and her interaction with the Chorus of Trojan women. She refers to them as 'my children' and employs the simile 'a mother at her plundered nest'. The way the Greek playwright constructs the relationship between characters is worth mentioning as Hecuba in this play is portrayed as a compassionate and empathetic leader, showing that women are also capable of leading others in a way that engenders a sense of camaraderie between them.

Another good thinking point is to talk about how Helen acts as a paradigm of a group of women who had to turn to deception and go against their integrity to survive in time of tragedy.

P2: Euripides’ selective use of language and literacy devices in portraying women’s pain and suffering further enables him to portray the ways in which women, as innocent bystanders, are oppressed in time of war.

An example of a metalanguage used in this play is the animal imagery the Chorus used to depict Hecuba’s pain. By referring to her pain as a 'howl of agony', they intensify the magnitude of Hecuba’s pain as the term 'howl' is usually used to describe a loud cry usually uttered by animals like wolves. This implies that Hecuba, who acts as representative of Hellenic women, has to suffer from an emotional turmoil that is far beyond bearable, which in turn further fortifies the audience’s sympathy for her, as well as the Trojan women.

Another piece of evidence that I would talk about is the simile 'dragged as a slave'. It was used to describe Hecuba, the former queen of Troy. By likening someone who used to be at a position of power to 'a slave', Euripides underscores the drastic change in circumstances that occurred as a result of the Trojan war, magnifying the tremendous amount of loss Hecuba experienced. Furthermore, the image of the protagonist’s devastated physical state enhances the dramatist’s condemnation of war as it allows him to elucidate the detrimental impacts such violence and dreadfulness impose on innocent bystanders.

There is, of course, plenty of other evidence out there such as the way in which Cassandra is portrayed as a 'poor mad child', her helplessness in surrendering to her 'wretched' fate with Agamemnon who wanted her for himself. We can also talk about the inclusive language positing, 'our misery', 'our home', used by the Chorus in echoing Hecuba’s pain, etc.

The use of symbolism can also be discussed. For instance, the citadel in the city of Troy in the epilogue acts as a metonym for Hecuba’s resistance before entering slavery. The image of it crumbling exemplifies women’s helplessness and enhances the notion that they are still in positions of explicit subjugation.

P3: While Euripides primarily focuses on portraying women’s pain and suffering, he does not completely vilify men or victimise women, maintaining an unbiased view so as to underscore the importance of integrity through his characterisation of both male and female character.

The last body paragraph of our essays is often the one used to challenge the prompt, showing the assessors our wealth of ideas and depth of knowledge. Basically, what we are saying is 'while our playwright is obviously pro-women, he definitely does not condone everything women do and criticise everything men do'.  In this way, we have the opportunity to explore the ways characters are constructed and the ways they are used in the play to convey its meaning.

If I were to write an essay on this, I would talk about Talthybius and Helen, mainly because they are both complex characters that the audience cannot fully love or hate.

Talthybius is surprisingly sympathetic towards women, establishing himself as a complicated figure. This is epitomised by the ways in which he employs euphemistic language when announcing the dreadful news to Hecuba. He tries his best to be sensitive and mitigate the impacts of Hecuba’s daughter's death to her, announcing that Polyxena 'is to serve Achilles at his tomb', that 'her fate is settled' and 'all her troubles are over'. He was being sensitive and subtle instead of abruptly delivering the news. While he represents an enemy state, he shows that men can also be compassionate, contradicting the Phallocentric belief that men should only be governed by cool logic.

Similar to Talthybius, Helen is also a complicated figure as she is both a victim of fate and a selfish character. It is possible for the audience to sympathise with her as she is merely a victim of fortune in that she was bewitched by Aphrodite and governed by her love for Paris, the prince of Troy. However, the ways in which she shifts the blame to Hecuba and makes her pleas preclude the audience from completely sympathising with her they, in a way, render her as a self-absorbed and repugnant character. This notion is further fortified by the fact that she cared so little for the 'tens of thousands' lives taken on her behalf as the phrase quantifies and magnifies the cataclysmic consequences of her lust for Paris.

6. LSG-Curated Women of Troy Essay Topics

1. Euripides’ play Women of Troy mainly focuses on the true cost of war. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
2. Women of Troy demonstrates that there is no real winner in war. Discuss.
3. In the Trojan wars, the Trojans suffered great losses while the Greeks did not suffer. Do you agree?
4. How does Euripides use language to portray the loss and suffering of Hellenic women in Women of Troy?
5. Characters in Women of Troy are all driven and motivated by their sense of duty and obligation. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
6. Hecuba’s greatest pain stems from the deaths of her children. Discuss the statement.
7. While Helen’s selfishness should be condemned, the audience can still condone her actions due to the circumstances she is in. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
8. Women of Troy is a tragedy, rather than a war-play. Do you agree?
9. Euripides argues that fate and fortunes are not preordained, and tragedies do not incriminate. To what extent do you agree with the statement?
10. It is impossible to sympathise with Helen because she is the most mischievous character of the play. Do you agree?
11. Women of Troy explores the ways in which a character’s true self might emerge in times of tragedy. Discuss.
12. In Women of Troy, The Chorus’ only role is to act as the representative of Hellenic women. Do you agree?
13. In the end, the gods are not responsible for the tragedies caused by the Trojan war as it happened as a result of poor choices. Do you agree?
14. Hecuba is the victim of fate. Discuss.
15. Love is a dangerous passion that can lead to tragic consequences. Does Women of Troy support this statement?
16. Hecuba is a tragic hero. Discuss.
17. How is the structure of Women of Troy used to convey its meaning?
18. It is possible for the audience to sympathise with Helen because of her love for Paris. Do you agree?
19. There is no villain in Women of Troy because everyone in the play suffers. Do you agree with the statement?
20. Discuss the role of dishonesty in Euripides’ Women of Troy.

If you'd like to see A+ essays based off some of the essay topics above (written by Mark Yin - our LSG content guru and 50 English study score achiever), complete with annotations on HOW and WHY the essays achieved A+ so that you can emulate this same success, then you'll definitely want to check out our A Killer Text Guide: Women of Troy ebook. In it, we also cover themes, characters, views and values, metalanguage and have 5 sample A+ essays completely annotated so that you can smash your next SAC or exam!

7. A+ Essay Topic Breakdown

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. This essay topic breakdown will focus on the THINK part of the strategy. If you’re unfamiliar with this strategy, then check it out in How To Write A Killer Text Response.

Within the THINK strategy, we have 3 steps, or ABC. These ABC components are:

Step 1: Analyse

Step 2: Brainstorm

Step 3: Create a Plan

Quote-Based Prompt:

'Who can forget these sufferings? Time will bring no relief.' There is no villain in Women of Troy because everyone in the play suffers. Do you agree with the statement?

The following comes essay topic breakdown comes from our A Killer Text Guide: Women of Troy ebook:

Step 1: Analyse

The quote mentions long-lasting sufferings, and the prompt seems to ask who suffers, and who is responsible. If you’ve been reading this guide in order, a lot of similar ideas from the last four essays might jump out here - I think that’s okay, because ideally you do get to a point where you can ‘recycle’ some of your quotes and ideas between essays (and the examiner won’t have to read all your practice essays anyway!).

While I’ll be doing a little bit of recycling here, I want the main take-away point from this essay to be around framing. Even if you’re using similar ideas that you’ve already seen, the trick is to explain and frame your analysis in a way that answers every prompt specifically. This is best done through how you thread your arguments together, and how you make those links. We’ll get into this as we plan.

Step 2: Brainstorm

For now, let’s recap these ideas of suffering and responsibility. Hecuba and the Trojan women suffer, and they argue Helen is responsible - but Helen also suffers, and she argues that the gods are responsible. The gods, as we know, are insulated from suffering because of their divine and superhuman status. So, are they the villains?

Step 3: Create a Plan

This is a similar progression of ideas that we have seen before, but I want to ground them in this cycle of suffering-responsibility.

P1: The eponymous women of Troy certainly suffer, and in many of their eyes, Helen is a villain.

P2: However, Helen does not see herself that way - and she is not incorrect. She too seems to suffer, and she sees the gods as the main villains who are responsible.

P3: Euripides may see the gods as careless and negligent beings, but he doesn’t necessarily depict them as cruel; rather, the excessively passionate war itself is depicted as the true enemy, and villains are those who revel in its cruelty.

As you might notice, parts of this plan are recognisable: we’ve started a few of these essays with a first paragraph about the Trojan women’s suffering, developed that in paragraph two by contrasting with Helen, and ending our analysis with the gods. But when reusing some of those ideas, it’s important to make sure they answer the specific question by modifying and adding new ideas as needed - this way, you don’t rewrite essays for new prompts and risk losing relevance, but you do reuse ideas and tailor them to new prompts every time.

The contention for this one will be: the Trojan War undoubtedly has its winners and losers, and few of these characters agree on who the responsible villains are, with some blaming Helen (P1) while she herself blames the gods (P2). However, the gods only form a part of the picture - rather, Euripides depicts war itself as the villain, lambasting those who take pride in inflicting cruelty in the midst of war (P3).

If you'd like to see an A+ essay on the essay topic above check out our A Killer Text Guide: Women of Troy ebook.

8. Extra Resources

The Ultimate Guide to VCE Text Response

How To Write A Killer Text Response (ebook)

How To Embed Quotes in Your Essay Like a Boss

How To Turn Text Response Essays From Average to A+

5 Tips for a Mic-Drop Worthy Essay Conclusion

‍With contributions from Mark Yin - 50 study score achiever, and author of our A Killer Text Guide: Women of Troy ebook.

When Lisa suggested that I blog about what teachers want in their students my immediate response was “Don’t we all want the same things!” We want our students to exhibit the insight and dedication that signals a top class learner. Additionally, it is obvious that teachers want students who are interested in the subject. Interested students make interesting lessons.

However, in my pondering on this question I have realised that for me students who are willing to engage with the text and commit to the task are always preferable.

Especially in English your teachers are looking for your willingness to explore your own ideas rather than rehash what others think. Your fresh perspective is welcome in a world where it’s all been said before… (and again!)

Another thing I like to find in a student is a unique style. There’s something sincere and credible about writing that speaks with its own distinct timbre, its individual structure and its authentic voice. This is the sort of writing that has you wanting to read on rather than doggedly plodding along to the end wishing that they had stuck to the lower word limit.

I can be a touch (*ahem*) pedantic and traditional in my views. I mean I love a page that is neatly written in a legible well-formed hand. There’s no chance of missing your meaning when your teacher can see what you’re saying. And something I instil in my students if they have not come to me already equipped with it is the ability to write on alternate lines only – I need a place to comment. You need a place to edit and this layout guards against sensory overload for your marker. Being willing to pay attention to apparently trivial details like this is the difference between a good student and a top student.

‍

10 popular questions from VCE students answered by a VCE teacher

1. My teacher says I have problems with my expression. What can I do to fix this?

Lisa has already posted one of the best ways to fix your expression: that is to read it aloud. The natural rhythms of your expression will be clearer to you and you will find that your ‘mouth’ often makes corrections as you articulate your prose.

Another excellent way to find your voice is to read quality writing. Make it a habit to read a few pages every day. You can use the books on the VCE reading lists, you can go to your local library, find classics online and look at the opinion columns in the city newspapers. The more you read the better you will be at phrasing your ideas succinctly.

2. Teachers often say, “you need to develop your essay more”. What does this really mean?

This means that you look beyond what the topic statement or prompt demands that you address and explore what it invites you to consider.

Too many students are content to skim along the surface of the text. Take a deep breath and dive right into the depths of the ideas and points of views that are proposed in each text.

Formulate your own ideas and then develop them: explain and elaborate. Pick a thematic concern in one of your texts and follow its progress through the text; that way you will understand it with greater awareness of the author’s intentions.

3. In regards to Text Response, should students be ready to write on both their texts for the exam?

I would encourage students to be prepared for both texts. Apart from the extra analysis practice you get by preparing for both texts, you can never be 100% sure that you have adequately covered all options for the type of reading and responding topic you may face.

However, if you know your text intimately, if you have explored its nuances thoroughly and are so familiar with its narrative that it’s like your best friend then, yes, going into the exam with the plan of responding to one text will be possible.

4. Is it important to make my essay ‘sound’ good by using ‘sophisticated’ language?

One of the criteria for a successful response and a regularly commented upon aspect of a successful essay is your ability to show “strong language skills”.

Having a broad vocabulary base – a word bank – will enable you to express your ideas fluently and with eloquence. Additionally, used appropriately (no Malapropisms please like the student who wrote that “parents these days pamper to their children’s every desire”) some sophisticated words will add gloss to your piece. Think of BIG words as the seasoning of your essay – there to enhance, to titillate your reader to continue, not to overpower her. This is definitely a case where  “less is more”. A little advanced vocabulary adds depth and interest; too much and meaning is sacrificed to effect.

5. In regards to Writing in Context, which is the easiest form to score well in? (for example: short story, essay, poem, speech etc.)

Note: This question is no longer relevant to the current English study design.

No one form is easier than another – it depends on the strength of the individual student. Find your strengths and cater to them. Perhaps you are skilled at taking a stance and validating that position with reasoned and logical rhetoric. If so then you should consider a form of the persuasive genre. If you are an adept storyteller with a flair for creating believable characters then opt for a type of creative response.

The way to excel is more about your authenticity as a writer rather than the type of text you produce. 

6.In regards to Writing in Context, would it be best to stick to a conventional essay structure or write  in the form of a hybrid? (for example, merging creative with expository writing.)

Note: This question is no longer relevant to the current English study design.

This reminds me of how subjective the marking process can be. I’m not a fan of hybrids, although according to the assessors’ comments there have been some successful results by students who choose to take this approach.

I think the hybrid type of response is better suited to the practiced, confident and polished writers amongst you.

Again, your score won’t depend on the form in which you decide to write your piece but on the degree to which you satisfy the criteria.

7. How should I prepare for the exam?

You should prepare for the exam by reading and rereading, watching and watching again, thinking and challenging those thoughts. You should do this until you come to a point where you know the text so thoroughly that you are equipped with enough knowledge about the text to enable you to respond to any topic with finesse.

You should discuss the texts with your friends, your fellow students, your teachers and your tutors.

You should look at study guides and compare your ideas to those you find in the many guides available.

You should brainstorm topics and write some full-length essays under exam conditions.

8. During the exam, ideally which essays should be approached first, second and last, and why?

There’s no set way of doing the exam. Some students like to attack the part of the exam that they are most confident about first – that can save valuable time for the more challenging section. Do it the way that you feel more comfortable with.

Others find it more useful to do the hardest first and get it out of the way. One successful student I know wrote half of each essay in order and then went back and finished each. Only attempt this approach if you are super confident about your voice and your capability for each section.

9. How can I avoid ‘retelling the plot’?

Only tell the story when it is essential for explanation and elaboration. A great tip was passed on to me by a student who attends one of the bigger boys schools: to test if you are telling the story see how many of your sentences express an opinion – the key word here is opinion, obviously.

Assume that your teachers and markers know the text and use the events from your selected novels, plays or films to validate your ideas. You are required to make relevant textual reference in your discussion as a means of evidencing your thoughts, so you cannot omit all elements of the narrative – just be fussy about what you include.

10. How can I make my conclusions more interesting?

A conclusion should be just what its name implies – it should show the position that you have reached having explored the topic (question, statement, media text). One of the most tedious ways to conclude is the one in which you summarise what you have already written. Another no-no is the restatement of your introduction.

You should make your conclusion show what you have deduced after your exploration of the required task. It is appropriate and useful to comment on authorial message in the conclusion. Just this one amendment from the tired old approach will raise your score.

This guide was written by a past VCE teacher who wishes to remain anonymous. Thank you ‘VF’ for your expert advice!

Oral Presentations - fun and full-scoring. Bet you’ve never heard those words in the same sentence before! As much as the Oral is a SAC that is often feared by many English students, I managed to come out of my presentation not completely terrified - I was actually able to somehow enjoy myself a little up there, and I might have even had a smile on my face when it was all done. And, what’s even better is that I managed to score full marks! 

In this blog post, I’m going to be guiding you through how I approached the Oral Presentation in Year 12 to achieve full marks. I’ll be breaking down my Oral Presentation script as well as giving some pointers about giving the Oral Presentation on the day.

‍Scroll down to the bottom to read my full Oral Presentation script!

The Topic I Chose and How I Chose It

You’ve probably heard a million times before to choose an issue that you’re passionate about. This can often leave you thinking, I don’t know what I’m passionate about! or I’m not passionate about anything in the media right now! I was one of those students in the beginning, but this is how I chose an issue that I ended up loving.

Taking Inspiration From My Other Year 12 Subjects

The subject I enjoyed the most in Year 12 was Legal Studies, and my love for this subject guided me in choosing an issue that I genuinely wanted to speak about. I was lucky to have a Legal Studies teacher who was a big nerd in everything law-related, and he often liked to update us about recent and ongoing legal cases that he found interesting. One case that he told us about that I became very interested in was the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case against Nine Entertainment where some journalists called out Ben Roberts-Smith (a war veteran) for committing war crimes. Roberts-Smith sued these journalists, alleging that this wasn’t true. 

I knew I wanted to speak about this case, but I also knew that I had to argue an opinion, and not just provide an overview of the case. So, I began my research into the views of the stakeholders in the case. Something that was very useful to me in my research was news podcasts! In particular, I came across a podcast episode from a podcast called Please Explain (as of 26/02/2024 it seems to have been rebranded and is now called The Morning Edition) by The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, where the actual journalists that were getting sued in the case talked about their experiences. After listening to this podcast episode on the way home from school, I found myself really sympathising with the journalists and that’s how I knew that I wanted to speak about this defamation case from the journalists’ perspective. 

After some thinking, the contention that I arrived at was this: 

‍More should be done to protect public interest journalism.

So my advice for choosing an Oral Topic that you love is to take inspiration from other subjects you’re studying and enjoying, and to pick up on and research anything that your teachers tell you about that piques your interest!

Breaking Down My Script

The Introduction

A Hook Start

‍Let me take you back in time. Six years ago, in 2017, many of us in this classroom were in Year 6, probably sitting in a primary school classroom, learning what an isosceles triangle is. And obviously, we had all been paying attention because now everyone’s thinking, “Oh yeah, I remember what an isosceles triangle is!” and we’re all imagining a tall triangle that looks like this.

Grabbing the audience’s attention from the very start of your speech is key! To do this, I tried to open up my speech in an interesting way by encouraging the audience to do something - to reflect on what their lives looked like six years ago. Hook starts such as the one I used (which establish a common ground with the audience) were commonly used among my classmates - they quickly grab the audience’s attention and are relatively easy to implement!

In my Statement of Intention*, I wrote that ‘I initially engage[d] my audience with a hook start, encouraging them to cast their minds back to 2017, and through the imagery of a primary school classroom, I aim[ed] to establish relatability and common ground with the audience, positioning them to be more agreeable to my arguments later on.’

‍*Statement of Intention - a written statement accompanying my Oral Presentation, where I explained the choices I made in my presentation. As of 2024 and with the implementation of the new study design, students are no longer required to submit a Statement of Intention with their Oral Presentations. However, if you’re curious to know more about Statements of Intention, check out this blog. 

‍

Providing Context

‍Now, while our Year 6 teachers were providing us with the life-changing information that is the different types of triangles, something bigger was happening on Collins Street. A huge news sausage was in the making. Picture this: a conversation between two passionate and overworked journalists, working for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. One of which had heard whispers from his contact book of Australian military circles that our most decorated living soldier was not the person that everyone thought he was, and that he had in fact been involved in war crimes like the killing of unarmed civilians. A shared desire to put these rumours to the test, with an open mind, wanting to disprove them as much as to prove them. 

‍This marked the start of a 4-year long legal battle in the form of a defamation lawsuit lodged by decorated war vet Ben Roberts Smith against two investigative journalists, Chris Masters and Nick McKenzie. And, after more than 100 days of hearings, this battle recently ended, with the judge ruling overwhelmingly in favour of Masters and McKenzie that what they had reported about Roberts Smith was substantially true, hence the two had not defamed him.

I spent a fair bit of time explaining the issue of protections around public interest journalism in the context of the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case because it was a bit of a niche issue and I thought that my audience of Year 12 students were unlikely to have known too much about it. To keep this explanation engaging, I tried to explain the case in a descriptive and dramatic way, as if the events were unfolding in front of their eyes, and I tried not to make it sound like I was just listing background information. To do this, I used phrases like ‘A huge news sausage was in the making’, ‘Picture this’, to really set the scene in a dramatic way!

‍A side note on choosing niche topics for the Oral Presentation: I know it’s often NOT recommended to choose topics that are unlikely to be well-known by your fellow students. This is because it can be disengaging when a student goes on a 5-minute tangent using complicated jargon on a topic that none of the other students know anything about. And… I guess I kind of turned that rule on its head! But this was precisely why I wanted to spend a chunk of my speech explaining the context of my issue - so that my speech would be accessible to my audience, so they wouldn’t be bored, and so we would all be on the same page. 

At the end of the day, it’s all about finding a balance between choosing a topic that you love and a topic that is easy for the audience to understand. So, if the topic that you would love to present to the class might be a bit less well-known, my advice would be to make sure to provide adequate context and spend a bit of time explaining key information at the start so that your speech is more accessible to the audience!

‍

Stating Contention

‍ABC News called it a win for public interest journalism. So why have I brought up this case today to highlight that not enough is being done to protect public interest journalism?

After my explanation section, I smoothly slid into contention territory. Even though I didn’t directly state my contention (i.e. I didn’t say “I believe that more should be done to protect public interest journalism”), through the question, ‘Why have I brought up this case to highlight that not enough is being done to protect public interest journalism?’, I implied that my contention was exactly that - that not enough is being done to protect public interest journalism. 

‍

The Supporting Arguments

I actually only had one supporting argument throughout my whole Oral Presentation, and although this might be an unusual way to do it, it worked well for me since I needed to spend quite a bit of time introducing the issue at the start. My one supporting argument was bulky enough that I had a complete speech with just a long introduction, bulky argument and conclusion. 

Work out what might work best for you in your presentation. If your issue needs a bit of breaking down like mine did, it might be easier to stick to a very simple structure.

‍

Outlining the Supporting Argument and Providing Evidence

‍Legal battles in general are a huge issue for journalism because they can be used as a threat to journalists. This defamation lawsuit was only the tip of the legal iceberg for Masters and McKenzie. They also faced challenges to source protection and Roberts-Smith’s numerous attempts to silence the two and other witnesses by sending them legal letters telling them to shut up, to suppress the truth about his actions from coming to light.

I then went on to explain my supporting argument - that legal battles such as defamation cases put public interest journalism at risk (which is why, going back to my overall contention, more should be done to protect public interest journalism). As you can see, I constantly linked back to the Roberts-Smith defamation case because that’s what I wanted to speak about, but I did not have to do this and you absolutely don’t have to - a general explanation would have gotten the job done just as well.

You might be wondering why I didn’t signpost at the start of my supporting argument - in other words, why I didn’t include a sentence like “My first supporting argument is that legal battles such as defamation cases put public interest journalism at risk”. Some teachers love signposting and encourage students to do so. If your teacher seems to prefer clear signposting, go ahead and do that! 

TIP: Keep in mind that for anything internally marked, it is important that you keep your teacher/school’s preferences and requirements in mind. 

My teacher wasn’t as insistent on signposting, and I personally didn’t like how clear signposting made my speech sound a bit robotic, so to keep the flow of the speech I decided to fluff it out and start my argument the way that I did. You’ll also notice a lack of signposting throughout my speech in general for the same reasons.

The biggest issue about the Ben Roberts Smith defamation case for journalists and news corporations has been costs. Their win has come with a hefty price tag estimated to be around $25 million, and even though the majority of this is to be borne by the loser of the trial, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald newspapers will still end up losing millions of dollars, just for defending themselves and their journalists in court. 

I backed up my supporting argument with some evidence. To quote my Statement of Intention, ‘I went on to use numerical statistics like “4 year[s]” and “100 days of hearings” to emphasise that much of Masters and McKenzie’s time and energy was taken by BRS’s claim, aiming to evoke sympathy for them and positioning readers to agree that more protections are needed to prevent journalists from being involved in these time-consuming legal battles. I also established costs as another major issue using the statistic of “$25 million” to emphasise that not only are these legal battles time-consuming, but also expensive, and through connotations of immensity when describing this as a “hefty price tag”’.’

‍

Explaining the Argument and How It Is Relevant to the Audience

But why exactly is this our issue? It’s not like we’re the ones having to pay millions of dollars.

But it becomes our issue when this financial burden creates a chilling effect on public interest journalism. Fear of bankruptcy or crippling financial strain forces journalists to retreat, self censor or settle for silence. This financial issue for news organisations becomes our issue as the quality of our public interest journalism deteriorates and we are deprived of vital information.

Throughout my speech, I made an effort to constantly tie it back to the audience and explain why exactly this issue was important and relevant to them. This was important for me to do because the issue I chose was relatively niche so I felt like I had to prove to them that this issue was worth presenting. Even if the issue you’re presenting isn’t exactly niche, it’s important to link back to the audience every now and then and to remind them why it’s important to them. In my case, I explained that defamation cases like the Roberts-Smith case against journalists and news corporations were a threat to high school students having access to information that they should be aware of!

Something else that I attempted to do here was to include some persuasive devices! To quote my Statement of Intention, ‘having established costs as a major issue, I segued into the effect that these costs can have on journalists, listing these effects as causing journalists to “retreat, self-censor or settle for silence”, and through listing and sibilance in the latter half of this phrase, I aimed to make these effects memorable to listeners, emphasising the consequences of the costs of legal battles on journalists and public interest journalism.”’

‍

Evidence

Masters and McKenzie talked about the pressure that was put on them to leave the rumours about Ben Roberts Smith be. Chris explained that his colleagues tried to convince him not to fight with Ben Roberts Smith by telling him that it was like shooting Bambi. Well, I guess in that case, he would have been shooting Bambi for shooting unarmed civilians, which sounds pretty fair to me. Nick explained that convincing their bosses to publish the story was an exhaustive process, and even after successfully having their story on Roberts Smith published, Chris said there was a propaganda war waiting for them, with their former colleagues being hired by other news corporations to criticise them and disassemble their work, with their story being put on the cover of a rival newspaper, as an attack on Chris, accusing him of smearing the memories of dead soldiers, and it was designed to intimidate and hurt him and his biding relationships with people in the military who consider him a deep friend. These attempts of BRS to silence the two are not just unfair - as students, we want to grow up in a world where people are held accountable regardless of their connections or wealth.

After explaining my argument, I backed it up with evidence by going back to the defamation case and giving practical, real-life examples of how this case may have worked to hinder the quality of public interest journalism. I took much of the information in this section from the podcast that I talked about earlier (where Masters and McKenzie talked about their firsthand experiences) - for example, the so-called “propaganda war” that Masters faced after having the story published, rival news outlets who were on the side of Roberts-Smith publishing articles attacking Masters - and explained that this was designed to intimidate the two investigative journalists and deter them from exposing controversial stories against prominent figures. I not only told but also showed my audience that legal battles were a very real threat to journalism. I referred to this section of my speech as ‘personal anecdotes’ in my Statement of Intention and I wrote that I hoped to make my speech more convincing by illustrating the consequences of legal battles that Masters and Mckenzie experienced firsthand.

I tried my best to not make this section sound too much like a “he said, she said” situation by slipping in some of my own commentary. My tutor at the time (yes, I also had an LSG English tutor!) gave me the idea of mirroring ‘shooting Bambi’ with ‘shooting unarmed civilians’, and it was so brutal but I liked it so much that I decided to implement it as part of my commentary. In my Statement of Intention, I wrote that this comparison ‘aims to portray Masters and McKenzie as merely holding him accountable for his actions rather than bullying him, encouraging audiences to view journalists as necessary whistleblowers that require protections.’

My final sentence in this section worked to link all of this back to the audience and remind them, again, why all of this was relevant to them! 

‍

The Conclusion

It’s obvious that in the end, it didn’t really matter that, this time, the courts sided with the journalists and news corporations in this legal battle. Because the reality is that the fact that this legal battle existed in the first place has been enough of a threat to public interest journalism, with cover up attempts and pressures to retreat, and may be a sign of many other stories being covered up. If two journalists, working for big news companies, felt the chilling effect of the legal battles that they came across, how much worse is it for smaller news organisations or independent journalists, who don’t have the deep pockets that The Age, Masters and McKenzie had in withstanding these challenges? This is only the tip of the iceberg of other stories that need to be broken and known by the public. We can’t continue to allow the law to be weaponised against journalists and against democracy. Thus, the recent conclusion of the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case is a sign that more should be done to protect public interest journalism. 

In my concluding paragraph, I did three things: 

1. I wrapped up
2. I aimed to evoke a sense of urgency on the issue (the bolded part)
3. I restated my contention at the very end to seal the deal

I didn’t exactly include a call to action in the part where I evoked a sense of urgency, but you totally could if that would work for your speech! 

It’s optional to restate your contention as your final sentence, and I opted to do this. I wanted to emphasise the point of my speech again so that my conclusion didn’t sound like it was straying away from the actual contention. I’d say do it if it flows well with the rest of your conclusion because when it’s done right, it really is like ending your speech with a bang!

I’ve Finished Writing a Killer Oral Script. What Now?

When you’ve perfected your speech script, it’s practice time! The way you present the speech is arguably as important, if not even more important than the script itself - presenting your speech in an engaging way can really make your script shine while presenting it in a dull way can make even the best script sound unappealing. 

Practice saying your speech out loud as early as possible and work towards having at least 85-95% of your speech committed to memory (especially if you’re paranoid and get anxious about public speaking like me). By the time I presented my Oral, I had memorised about 95% of my speech and the fact that I knew it off by heart gave me confidence and helped me feel less paranoid that I would mess up. This being said, I would definitely recommend having cue cards with dot points of your main ideas or little prompts with you in the presentation (which I also did), just in case you suddenly blank out!

I spent a week memorising my speech, reciting it out loud over and over again in my bedroom. In doing this, I pretty intuitively found the spots where I wanted to include pauses, change up my intonation or emphasise certain words or phrases - I committed these things to my muscle memory. If public speaking doesn’t come naturally to you, it might be a good idea to highlight and annotate your script and physically write in the parts where you want to include pauses or emphasise words. Practice with that script in front of you until you’ve memorised those things.

I also generally focused on my projection making sure to speak loudly, and I paid attention to my speed and diction. I tend to speed up and start rapping my speech when I’m nervous, so I made a conscious effort to speak slower and steadier in my practice runs, trying to engrain the perfect speed in my muscle memory (to varying levels of success haha). I also tried to make sure I was pronouncing everything clearly and that I wasn’t mumbling.

Before I started my presentation, I took a moment to take a deep breath, shake out my nerves and fix my posture. Good posture is the first step to feeling confident or faking confidence (which we all are when we’re up there)! 

What I Wish I Had Done Before I Did My Oral Presentation

If I could go back and give my Year 12 self advice on the Oral, it would be this: 

Practice saying my speech in front of someone.

I was pretty shy about my speech - you might relate - so I was very reluctant to practice my speech in front of my peers and even my friends. Unfortunately, this meant that I never practised it in front of another person at all, not even once. This is something that I really regret because I didn’t get to practice keeping a good balance between holding eye contact and looking at my cue cards. This ended up being a criticism from my teacher when she assessed my presentation! My teacher also criticised the fact that I didn’t hold an equal amount of eye contact throughout the whole classroom - she wrote that the right side of the classroom must have felt left out because I barely looked in their direction, haha! So, if you can, I really recommend getting out of your comfort zone and practising presenting your Oral in front of your friends or family members… and practice holding eye contact!

If you’ve made it to the end of this blog post, I’m assuming you’ll be having your Oral Presentation soon. Good luck, and try to enjoy presenting your speech if you can, because it’s the first and last time you will ever have the opportunity to present it! 

For more help with your Oral, see our Ultimate Guide to VCE Oral Presentations. 

My Full Oral Presentation Script: More Should Be Done To Protect Public Interest Journalism

Let me take you back in time. Six years ago, in 2017, many of us in this classroom were in Year 6, probably sitting in a primary school classroom, learning what an isosceles triangle is. And obviously, we had all been paying attention because now everyone’s thinking, “Oh yeah, I remember what an isosceles triangle is!” and we’re all imagining a tall triangle that looks like this.

Now, while our Year 6 teachers were providing us with the life-changing information that is the different types of triangles, something bigger was happening on Collins Street. A huge news sausage was in the making. Picture this: a conversation between two passionate and overworked journalists, working for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. One of which had heard whispers from his contact book of Australian military circles that our most decorated living soldier was not the person that everyone thought he was, and that he had in fact been involved in war crimes like the killing of unarmed civilians. A shared desire to put these rumours to the test, with an open mind, wanting to disprove them as much as to prove them. 

This marked the start of a 4-year long legal battle in the form of a defamation lawsuit lodged by decorated war vet Ben Roberts Smith against two investigative journalists, Chris Masters and Nick McKenzie. And, after more than 100 days of hearings, this battle recently ended, with the judge ruling overwhelmingly in favour of Masters and McKenzie that what they had reported about Roberts Smith was substantially true, hence the two had not defamed him.

ABC News called it a win for public interest journalism. So why have I brought up this case today to highlight that not enough is being done to protect public interest journalism?

Legal battles in general are a huge issue for journalism because they can be used as a threat to journalists. This defamation lawsuit was only the tip of the legal iceberg for Masters and McKenzie. They also faced challenges to source protection and Roberts-Smith’s numerous attempts to silence the two and other witnesses by sending them legal letters telling them to shut up, to suppress the truth about his actions from coming to light.

The biggest issue about the Ben Roberts Smith defamation case for journalists and news corporations has been costs. Their win has come with a hefty price tag estimated to be around $25 million, and even though the majority of this is to be borne by the loser of the trial, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald newspapers will still end up losing millions of dollars, just for defending themselves and their journalists in court. 

But why exactly is this our issue? It’s not like we’re the ones having to pay millions of dollars.

But it becomes our issue when this financial burden creates a chilling effect on public interest journalism. Fear of bankruptcy or crippling financial strain forces journalists to retreat, self censor or settle for silence. This financial issue for news organisations becomes our issue as the quality of our public interest journalism deteriorates and we are deprived of vital information.

Masters and McKenzie talked about the pressure that was put on them to leave the rumours about Ben Roberts Smith be. Chris explained that his colleagues tried to convince him not to fight with Ben Roberts Smith by telling him that it was like shooting Bambi. Well, I guess in that case, he would have been shooting Bambi for shooting unarmed civilians, which sounds pretty fair to me. Nick explained that convincing their bosses to publish the story was an exhaustive process, and even after successfully having their story on Roberts Smith published, Chris said there was a propaganda war waiting for them, with their former colleagues being hired by other news corporations to criticise them and disassemble their work, with their story being put on the cover of a rival newspaper, as an attack on Chris, accusing him of smearing the memories of dead soldiers, and it was designed to intimidate and hurt him and his biding relationships with people in the military who consider him a deep friend. These attempts of BRS to silence the two are not just unfair - as students, we want to grow up in a world where people are held accountable regardless of their connections or wealth.

It’s obvious that in the end, it didn’t really matter that, this time, the courts sided with the journalists and news corporations in this legal battle. Because the reality is that the fact that this legal battle existed in the first place has been enough of a threat to public interest journalism, with cover up attempts and pressures to retreat, and may be a sign of many other stories being covered up. If two journalists, working for big news companies, felt the chilling effect of the legal battles that they came across, how much worse is it for smaller news organisations or independent journalists, who don’t have the deep pockets that The Age, Masters and McKenzie had in withstanding these challenges? This is only the tip of the iceberg of other stories that need to be broken and known by the public. We can’t continue to allow the law to be weaponised against journalists and against democracy. Thus, the recent conclusion of the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case is a sign that more should be done to protect public interest journalism.  

For more help with your Oral, see our Ultimate Guide to VCE Oral Presentations.