SwedishPersian

I'd like to point out this thread: Click
Especially these two posts: Post1 and Post 2 [but read the entire thread!]

For my WL1, I chose between comparing poem[s] and a novel and comparing two novels. I chose two novels because it was just easier, in my opinion. I don't know that you should go out of your way to mention the different genres of the works unless it will enhance your argument significantly.

SwedishPersian, on Jul 29, 2009 - 19:52, said:

Okay I'd like to second sweetnsimple in that you ought not to focus too much on the differences between play and novel. HOWEVER the examiner will think you've seriously missed a trick if you don't at least mention it in passing. With World Lit the ultimate technique is actually condensation. Saying as many things as possible in as little room as possible, because that thing has a ridiculously low word count! So what you'll want to do in order to highlight the effects of play versus novel would be to inject key things cunningly into what you write

For instance, if Hamlet starts monologuing, call it a monologue. You could say something like "this is particularly effective as it is spoken directly to the audience, revealing Hamlet's inner thoughts, which helps to show how he as an individual is/not corrupted" (sorry I don't know Hamlet!!) and you get bonus points for the word audience which shows very clearly you're appreciating the most essential quality of it as a text and as a PLAY as opposed to a novel. Go out of your way to incorporate the effect on the audience, the mention of stage directions, the sense of intimacy of monologues (which is a word which just shrieks play) etc etc. You can even lead into a contrasting sentence about novels -- for instance everything in a play has to be conveyed through speech. More or less all information is verbal, whereas in novels there's a LOT in what is left unsaid. You can't have silent characters in a play, really (at least not in Shakespeare from my experience, ahah), but you can have plenty in a novel. The phrase "you know most by what is left unsaid" DOES hold for both play and novel, but in plays it necessarily has to be heavily alluded to subtext. Whereas in novels it can genuinely be description. You can't really simulate the beauty of superb metaphor and description in a play etc.

Bring them in, but don't centre on them. Mention them enough to hit all of the "this candidate absolutely recognises that one is a play, one is a novel, what unites them and what makes each of them effective in their own special way" points!

SwedishPersian, on Jul 29, 2009 - 19:17, said:

From a grammar standpoint, you should add the word 'of' or 'in' after you say 'societies'
And capitalize and italicize, of course.
Also, I'd list the authors rather than just saying 'the authors'

Other than that, it looks fine. I'm guessing you're focusing on literary techniques throughout the paper, with a 'so what' significance in the conclusion.

That looks like way too much! The standard is 3 POCs, but even two is sufficient. The word limit is quite troublesome! And you don't want to favor breadth over depth.

You could write your entire essay on POC 1, 3, or 4

I think to answer your question [How do the authors criticize the corrupt societies Denmark and soviet Russia in hamlet and the master and margarita, respectively?], you should talk about the authors' tone/writing style as one POC and perhaps how the book ends as another POC. I haven't read either book, though, but it seems plausible that neither had a "happily-ever-after."

I also think it's a good idea to mention the censorship.

Edit: Explanation for the POCs I mentioned--POC 2 doesn't seem like it would answer your questions. How does explaning the setting talk about how authors are criticizing the corruption? You need to mention the culture/setting, but you have to cleverly weave it into your paper like Sandwich mentioned earlier.

SwedishPersian, on Jul 31, 2009 - 19:28, said:

No, but they usually are. Break up a POC into two paragraphs if you're talking about two different ideas. I think it'll be hard to have more than 3 fully fleshed out body paragraphs in a world lit essay, so I don't recommend extra paragraphs.

Capitalization thing... perhaps your teacher told you differently, but as far as I know, you don't capitalize nonproper nouns in the middle of a sentence unless you're personifying them or something.

In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Michael Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita, how are the respective, corrupt societies of Denmark and Soviet Russia criticized?

or if you're making this question the title of the paper, go and capitalize every 'important' word [like everything but articles and preposistions]

In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Michael Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita, How Are the Respective, Corrupt Societies of Denmark and Soviet Russia Criticized?

I personally don't make my titles questions.