Exemplar student response and examiner commentary

An exemplar student response to a Section C question in the specimen assessment materials, followed by an examiner commentary on the response.

Paper 2B, Section C

'Political and social protest writing often focuses on rebellion against those in power.'

Explore the significance of rebellion as it is presented in two political and social protest texts you have studied. 

Band 5 response

The concept of rebellion for many is exciting and implies something noble – the disenfranchised standing up against the franchised, the young challenging the authority of older generations and questioning traditional values and behaviours. Rebels often become cultural heroes. Literature, for the most part seems to be on the side of the rebel, sometimes as in the case of Harrison's 'v.', giving the rebel a voice and suggesting that power and authority are corrupt.  However, rebels are not always celebrated –either by the media or literature.  Although Shakespeare's position is not clear cut in the way the political rebels are presented in Henry IV Part 1, ultimately he seems to support the authority of the king.  Written  about four hundred years apart, both Shakespeare in his play Henry IV Part 1 and Harrison in the poems 'v.' and 'Them and [uz]', show how natural it is for the human spirit to rebel against oppression and for human beings ( and especially writers) to voice their disquiet against those in power.

Both texts are grounded in historical facts but Harrison is writing from a personal contemporary perspective – (the 1980s) and Shakespeare is writing 100 years after the events of the play. In Shakespeare's England, the history play was popular but interestingly it was seen as politically suspect by Queen Elizabeth. She certainly grew to be unhappy with seeing the theatre staging plays about monarchs who were usurped or who were rebelled against. However, Henry IV Part 1 shows that those who rebel against kings do not ultimately prosper (apart from the comic rebel Falstaff who is given honours after his cowardice in battle). Henry himself had rebelled against Richard II and although he wards off threats to his kingship in this play, he is not happy or secure. Indeed as a rebel himself, Henry is wracked with guilt and sees the 'rebellion' of his own son as a punishment for the 'displeasing service' he has done to God. But Shakespeare's main focus here is not on Henry as a rebel but on Henry as the one who wields power. Against him are other rebels – Hotspur, Worcester, Northumberland and Glendower who pit themselves against the king – and they are not seen to be successful either. Both Hotspur and Worcester end up dead and Glendower and Northumberland are somewhat discredited as worthy rebels. Shakespeare's presentation of both the rebels and the powerful here is interesting in a dramatic sense. Although the rebels have a cause, Shakespeare does not show Henry as a despotic king and Henry is not drawn as a tyrant who needs to be deposed.

Hotspur is the most interesting of the insurgents. He is first seen as a character who takes 'honourable spoils' and who is 'the theme of honour's tongue'. In some ways – especially at the start of the play - this valiant soldier is presented as a model youth – rebellious though he is. Ironically he is a young man whom the king envies for a son. It is interesting that Shakespeare did not follow history in his treatment of Hotspur. Shakespeare makes Hotspur a contemporary of Hal for dramatic contrast and to foreground Henry's troubled mind. While Hal is rebelliously drinking with the good lads of Eastcheap, Hotspur is defeating armies and taking prisoners.

In the council chamber in act 1 scene iii, Hotspur openly expresses his anger at Henry's leadership and shows a real passion in not giving up his prisoners to the king. His openness is contrasted in this scene with his scheming uncle and in this Hotspur is an attractive rebel.  After his quarrel with Henry about his prisoners and about Henry's verbal abuse of Mortimer (who legitimately has a claim to the throne), Hotspur is enraged about Henry's kingship and how he came to power. He promises to rebel against 'this vile politician Bolingbroke' and encourages his father and uncle to 'Revenge the jeering and disdain'd contempt of this proud King'.  Hotspur's language is colourful and aggressive and it dramatically contrasts with the lukewarm utterances of his father who says that Hotspur did not deny Henry the prisoners, but either 'envy' or 'misprision' 'is guilty of the fault and not' his son.

However, as the play progresses and Hotspur becomes hell-bent on 'bloody conflict', it is hard to admire his glorification of war. His desire for violence distorts Hotspur as a man. The quest turns him into a rash 'wasp-stung and impatient fool' and increasingly Shakespeare presents him as ridiculous (for example in the scene with his wife and Glendower). He also loses the audience's respect as a noble rebel in his craving for personal honour and in his self destructive fanaticism. By the time he is defeated at the end of the play – at the Battle of Shrewsbury – it is easier to feel relief that Henry survives than be disappointed that Hotspur's rebellion fails. This is partly achieved through the reformed behaviour of the rebel Hal who is a counter to the absurdity of Hotspur and who Shakespeare elevates in the final scene.

Hal is first introduced as a frequenter of the tavern in Eastcheap, seemingly rebelling against his father's authority and status. Here he associates with Falstaff, the king of dishonour and rebellion. However, Hal's rebellion is only surface deep as indicated in his 'I know you all' soliloquy. Shakespeare uses the soliloquy to reveal Hal as a political astute Machiavel rather than the 'nimble footed madcap Prince of Wales'.  When he joins with his father at Shrewsbury, Hal joins the power base of monarchy, nobly defeats Hotspur in battle and is respectful in his eulogy to him ( 'Thy ignominy' Hal says, will sleep with Hotspur in his grave, and not be remembered in his epitaph). Hal is also kind to Poor Jack, 'if a lie may do thee grace, I'll gild it with the happiest terms I have' showing that the reformed rebel has the making of a king.

In 'Them and [uz]' rebellion is significant in a number of ways. Perhaps most  striking is the way that Harrison as poet, recreating  snatches of memories from his past, rebels against the literary elite and those who uphold Standard English and Received Pronunciation as superior to and more powerful than any other way of speaking and writing. His dedication to 'Professors Richard Hoggart & Leon Cortez' is his first stab at authority and the literary heritage. Hoggart, it seems is to be upbraided for his scholarship while Cortez – the comedian – is ironically elevated to a professor. Harrison rebels against the establishment's identifying itself with great writers and scholars by reminding them – and [uz] that Keats spoke with a Cockney accent and Wordsworth rhymed matter with water. In writing this poem, Harrison regards himself as politically defiant – a rebel (So right, yer buggers, then! We'll occupy/ your lousy leasehold Poetry). His use of the expletive here and the non-Standard 'yer' cuts across the language that would normally be considered 'poetic'. In 'Them and [uz]' there are specific attacks on the teacher (a representative of power) who called the young Harrison at the Leeds Grammar School a 'barbarian' for speaking in a Yorkshire accent. Harrison's rebellion is made clear in his determination to use his own name – he will be 'Tony' and not the Anthony that The Times insists upon and he will also use his 'own voice [uz] [uz] [uz]' and end his sentences with prepositions (by, with, from). The use of repetition and listing enforces his defiance and the point is clinched in the punning in the line 'You can tell the Receivers where to go'.

In 'v.' Harrison is even more defiant and deviant. In order to give his skinhead protagonist a voice, Harrison deliberately uses four letter words, in ways that certainly shocked the establishment of 1985 when the poem was published. Interestingly, not only does Harrison rebel in his choice of language, but his central character is himself a rebel, graffitiing gravestones in the Leeds Cemetery with 'CUNT, PISS SHIT and (mostly) FUCK'. The skinhead who represents the unemployed of the Thatcher years rebels in the only ways he can, by swearing, being disrespectful and abusive. The skinhead though is not condemned by Harrison. The narrator of the poem (who is a representation of Harrison himself) seeks to understand how people become so disaffected and in doing so his criticism is aimed straight at the powerful, the industrial magnates who legitimately 'forge their fetters' in neon signs in contrast to the unemployed who graffiti gravestones to show that they exist.

Although so very different in their presentations of rebellion, both Shakespeare and Harrison use humour to sharpen the edge of their ideas. In Henry IV Part 1, the rebel Falstaff is comically drawn to engage the theatre audience, the ton of lard who delights in pretending he is the king (subversive rebellion indeed!) and in 'v.' Harrison deliberately mocks himself and his art while trying to defend the rebel whose words he tries to give meaning to. In an attempt to establish a bond, the narrator says that he too has done 'some mindless aggro' in the past to which the skin replies, 'Yeah, ah bet yer wrote a poem, yer wanker you!' Rebellion, perhaps, could not be expressed much stronger.

Examiner commentary

This is a very confident and neatly shaped response in which the candidate makes some sophisticated points about the significance of rebellion in Henry IV Part 1 and Harrison's poetry.  Both texts are handled well and there is good selection of material for discussion. It is perfectly acceptable to only deal with two Harrison poems. Although some ideas could have been more succinctly made and although the contextual information is a bit heavy handed, this is an assured and perceptive response.

AO1 

The essay is well structured and the task is always in the candidate's mind. The candidate shapes the argument well and writes with a strong and assured personal voice. There is a confident use of literary critical concepts and terminology and the written expression is mature and at times impressive. Quotation is well integrated into the argument.

AO2 

There is perceptive understanding that Henry IV Part 1 is a drama and that Shakespeare has deliberately constructed it to shape meanings. There is some insightful discussion of structure and language. In writing about Harrison's poetry, the candidate focuses well on voice and language to show how meanings are shaped.

AO3 

Relevant contexts are perceptively discussed, including the historical contexts of the two texts and the linguistic and social contexts of Harrison. These are very well linked to the political and social protest writing genre.

AO4 

As the candidate fully engages with the task and rebellion and power, there is perceptive exploration of the political and social protest writing genre thereby establishing connections across literary texts. Connections between the texts in terms of the genre are explicitly and perceptively explored.

AO5 

There is perceptive and confident engagement with the significance of rebellion as it is presented in both texts and the candidate clearly knows the texts well and selects appropriate material for the argument. The candidate is clearly thinking about the task and offers some complexity in the answer.

This response seems consistent with the band 5 descriptors.

This resource is part of the Elements of political and social protest writing resource package.