Kashmir
In the first paragraph, as the writer writes their introduction, they pictorially describe how the setting of Kashmir looks like. Such as describing how the scenery of the sky is a "milk blue sky" and the ground as a "yellow mustard field". In the first paragraph, the writer is describing the scenery of Kashmir, the region in India from a distance, not the writer themselves actually being there from far away. However, in the second paragraph, the writer is at a specific town in Kashmir, At Qazigund, where they are describing the place first hand. The writer in the second paragraph describes At Qazigund as a “charcoal, tobacco, cooking oil, months-old dirt, and human feces”. Since the writer in the first paragraph was seeing it from far away, it looked nice a peaceful, but when they were there, the writer is describing it as very crowded, dirty, disgusting, and very old. The mood varies between the two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, the mood is peaceful and tranquil. We can imagine "the mountain, snow-capped" and full of "colour". In the second paragraph, the way the writer described Qazigund, can make it seem musty, unbearable, and doesn't make you feel like it's friendly or home like. It can make a person feel like the place is dangerous of how the setting is and the sanitation used through this piece of writing. The structure throughout was also very confusing. The reason why is because it doesn't make sense why the writer doesn't say the town, Qazigund first, rather than explaining the province in the area. The way it was also described was weird of how they described the province, Kashmir, as a peaceful, but yet the At Qazigund is in the province and describes it the opposite of how they described Kashmir.
As I look into the rubric, I'm looking at AO1, I give myself a score of a total mark scheme of 3 marks. I used at least 2 buzzwords. I used reference from the authors' text of describing the 'characteristics features' of Kashmir and Qazigund. I didn't explain thoroughly of the specific little details in the text, such as 'rocky' or describing how the people of Kashmir felt or dressed. I feel like a better job of explaining the first paragraph and than that of the second paragraph. However, I did describe the scenery of how the author described it well and how well it related to the viewpoint on how it related to the text, such as a buzzword. I also had a clear understanding of the text of why the author used such descriptive words. I just feel like I should've used more of the buzzwords such as noun. For AO1 I would give myself a total mark scheme of 2.
ReplyDeleteAs we move forward to looking at the rubric for AO3 for structure, as what Mr. Scalia said, we can not explain the text sentence by sentence, as though I did that before he told the class that. I used some elements of form that explained why those types of words were brought up in the text. I only picked out some of the writer's stylistic choices that were relevant in the text. I didn't go in depth on the people of the town or in depth of the bazaar, the smell of the aroma, going up through your nostrils. However, I only used a minimum of quotes that were provided, rather than including more than that of the text, again explaining the importance of what the people look like, the smell, the imagery. Everything on the rubric for AO3, except for the evidence. I feel like did well on using evidence from the text such as quoting them and explaining why that is crucial of recapitulating it. I would give myself a level 3. As this was my first blog of AICE English, and have been in the class for a week, knowing little, I would give myself a total of 9 marks for section AO3.