How do the poets present people in Vultures and Two scavengers in a truck, two beautiful people in a Mercedes

Authors Avatar

How do the poets present people in Vultures and one other poem.

        In the Vultures, Chinua Achebe presents a rather pessimistic view of mankind.  He presents the reader with an ambiguous conclusion about the nature of people.  He suggests that in even the most evil ‘ogre’ can love exist, or that love can only exist in people, in the presence of eternal evil.

        The main way that Achebe presents people, is the language he uses to describe the vultures.  In fact, the vultures may be a metaphor for all people.  The reader is bombarded with gruesome language, and the poet’s diction is very negative.  He writes of the depressing ‘drizzle’, the vultures perching on a ‘broken bone of a dead tree’.  He intertwines these depressing phrases with the revolting --, how the vultures ‘picked the eyes’ of a ‘swollen corpse’.  Yet he marvels at the seemingly misplaced show of love, as the male ‘inclined affectionately’ to the other vulture.  In a sense Achebe uses language in this poem to suppress that even the most obviously repulsive people can show love.

Join now!

        Similarly, Lawrence Ferlinghtti uses language in ‘Two scavengers in a truck, two beautiful people in a Mercedes’ to present people.  However the difference here is that the language is used, not to repulse us, but to contrast the two couples we are shown.  The contrast between the ‘grungy scavengers’ and the ‘cool’ couple is shown throughout the poem.  While the man is ‘hip’ has long ‘blond hair’ and is a rich architect, the older scavenger is a ‘hunched back’ with grey iron hair’, looking like ‘Quasimodo’.  Both poets use language to present people, but in different ways.

        Both poets use ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

Quality of writing Spelling, grammar and punctuation are all fine, although there are some small errors, such as failing to correctly capitalise the title of “Two Scavengers in a Truck, Two Beautiful People in a Mercedes”, and in one instance, referring to it as “Two scaremongers in a truck…” A good way to avoid repeating such a long title is to put a note in brackets after the first usage of it, saying “(hereafter referred to as Two Scavengers)”. Some quotations also lack speech marks, and this is again a fairly basic error that is most likely a typo, but is one that would cost marks and is extremely easy to fix.

Level of analysis The candidate’s frequent use of quotations is good, but there is a need for more development of them, most clearly in the third paragraph, which refers to “Two Scavengers in a Truck, Two Beautiful People in a Mercedes. The analysis is of a higher than average level for GCSE, and is commendable for its range rather than its depth. There are sentences in almost every paragraph which demonstrate the candidate’s high level of thinking (“There is irony in that these people are hanging on the bottom rung of society, yet may be morally superior. After all, society would crumble if there were not people prepared to clean up its rubbish.”), and ability to consider different views and questions the poem raises. The candidate’s use of many smaller paragraphs, as opposed to fewer, longer paragraphs suggests a lack of development of ideas. It feels as though the candidate has a better grasp of the imagery and ideas behind Achebe’s poem “Vultures” as the balance of the essay is skewed in its favour, but writing about each poem fairly equally gives a better impression to examiners and will most likely lead to a better essay. The candidate must be aware that although "Vultures" is the named poem in the question, it should not be given disproportionately greater attention in the essay.

Response to question The question is fairly broad and encompasses a range of different techniques and ideas. A particular strength of this essay is that it displays extended discussion of both the literary devices used by the poets to present people, and also the effect this has for the reader. Discussing the quotations used in greater depth would gain the candidate marks, and it often seems that some have been used for no reason. Textual reference is important, but so too is relevancy – therefore quotations should provide evidence to support the candidate’s argument.

Avatar

There are a few grammatical errors, but in general the spelling, grammar and punctuation are mostly fine. As previously said, an increase in the use of technical terms would help, perhaps trying to include at least one for every quote or so. However, the essay is structurally clear and focused, and blatantly contrasts everything, especially in context to the question.

Although there are some clear uses of the relevant terminology, the candidate could use more explicit terminology and more of it in some cases to better back up their points. Also, often they just state what the technique being used is, and don't then explain it, rather than analysing it, and the effect it would have. For instance, the section about the language, with the quotes about appearance such as 'Quasimodo' could be further analysed about the metaphor and the effect this has, rather than just integrating the quotes into a statement. More quotes could also be used to back up the points with firmer and more concrete evidence, but the candidate uses short quotes, which would be quicker and easier in an exam situation. They do frequently link to attitudes, and there are occasionally some original ideas, although if these were more prominent and clearer, they would be more successful.

The candidate has focused well around the question and the presentation of people, and has compared the two poems very well. Every time they make a point, they compare it, linking the poems well, and follow through on every comment by clearly referring to the question and showing how each aspect answers the question. To some extent, however, the candidate needs to develop each point in a bit more depth, because a few quotes lack detail and are not very specific, for example the short paragraph on imagery about the ogre is a metaphor in particular. They seem to focus on general aspects of language and imagery, and more techniques, particularly about structure (as there is not much analysis on this) would be an improvement.