Stage 2 English Studies
Annotated Work Sample
Assessment Component 1: Examination
Paired Text Question
This essay received a mark in the A range of achievement
This essay was written under examination conditions and has been reproduced as it was
written, without corrections. The annotations at the end were made in the light of
Performance Standards that are available on the SSABSA website.
Compare the techniques that the authors of the two texts use to show disapproval of the
society each presents.
In the texts The Crucible and The Outsider both Miller and Camus use the narratives to
instate critical views of their own societies. Miller allegorises his own American society using
1694 Salem, the “New Jerusalem” of it’s puritan inhabitants. Contrastingly Camus uses the
highly Catholic confines of French Algeria to instate a critical view of his own French
society. Through their joint disaproval of their societies portrayed, both Miller and Camus
present their readers with the challenge to question the confines of their own societies, urging
us to break free from such restrictions in order to live wholesome lives.
Although The Crucible is a play, and The Outsider is a novella, both Miller and Camus utilise
techniques unique to their mediums to show their disapproval of their societies. Millers’ use
of stage directions and interpolation allows him to influence his audiences opinions of
characters creating empathy and bias towards his protagonist, John Proctor and mistrust
towards less laudable characters. Miller tells us of Proctor that he is a “worldly man” when
his character is introduced, inviting his audience to side with this character. Reverend Parris,
a member and leader of the puritan society is introduced in a more negative light. In his
introductory interpolation, Miller tells us that “There is little good to be said of Parris” and
“in history he cut a villainous path”. Using these interpolations, Miller is able to criticise the
figures of his restrictive puritan society before the even enter the dialogue.
Contrastingly, in The Outsider Camus uses the perspective of a first person protagonist, M.
Meursault to cast a critical view of a French society the author describes through his
protagonist as being “Obsessed with keeping up appearances”. Meursault’s apathetical
existentialist perspective is confronting and often shocks the reader with its blatant dismissal
of human emotion. This is shown especially well in Meursault’s first words “Mother died
today… or was it yesterday”. Meursault’s lack of sensitivity to even his own emotions allow
us to see his society through the eyes of an existentialist, and thus realise the absurdity of
Meursault’s self obsessed French society.
Both Miller and Camus protagonists carry the authorial voice of their texts, allowing their
authors to use their constructs to criticise their societies. In The Crucible Miller establishes
Proctor as a pillar of truthfulness amongst a myriad of chaotic lies. Proctor is a man of great
physical and emotional strength, who “hung the door on the church” in the theocracy of
Salem. During the chaos of the witchhunts, he serves as a “voice of reason” in this “world
gone mad”. His contrast to the madness of society allows Miller to use his construct to voice
criticisms of the madness of the allegorical witchhunts. Similarly, as the first person narrator
of The Outsider, Camus is able to use Meursault to carry the authorial voice of his text, as an
SSABSA Support Materials: 533559163, last updated 3 March 2016
page 1 of 3
amoral “voice of indifference”. Meursault’s dismissal of human emotion is epitomised by his
response to Marie’s marriage proposal. Camus uses aside to allow Meursault to tell us that “It
[marriage] had little meaning anyway” before he tells Marie blatently that “I suppose we shall
be married if it were to please you”. Using Meursault’s apathy as the authorial voice of his
text, Camus is able to criticise his own society.
In their texts, both Miller and Caimus use a flawed protagonist in combination with a
reductive structure in order to affirm the authorial, yet human voices of their constructed
protagonists. Their characters are deconstructed to validate their challenge and disapproval of
their societies. In Act 1 of The Crucible, Proctor is shown activly amongst his community, a
“weighty” figure of authority. In Act II Miller shows Proctor at home, on his continent,
reduced to the stance of a mortal. His “cold” relationship with his wife Elizabeth, and lack of
religious knowledge are shown here, creating “cracks” in the moral “fortress” of John Proctor
that Miller introduced in Act 1. We are shown a human side to this character, allowing Miller
to create audience empathy for Proctor. Act III sees Proctor enter “The Crucible” itself as he
is put on trial for his witchcraft, yet is judged for his standing against society. Act IV sees
Proctor exit “the crucible” as a purified soul, a renewed moral fortress. His moral standing
against the theocracy is proven when he refuses to give his “name”, honouring his fellow
prisoners and is thus sent to the noose, vindicating his life.
Similarly Camus uses a reductive structure to reveal Meursault as the authorial voice in his
text. Meursault’s actions in Part One of the novella often shock Camus audience, yet in Part
Two of the novella we see that Camus protagonist is truly the “lesser of two evils”. Meursault
is judged “Mr Antichrist”, a “heartless monster”, not for his murder of an underclass Arab,
but because his society deems him “morally guilty of his mothers death”. In reflecting on his
actions at the beach, where his flawed sensitivity to his own sensuality caused him to react to
the “blade of light” from the Arab’s knife, Meurrsault concludes that “I was right, I had
always been right”. Thus after Camus estranges Meursault from his society we see how
acceptance of a death at the blade allows him to vindicate his existence, as well as Camus
criticism of this “self-obsessed” French society.
Both Miller and Camus make use of language appropriate to their temporal and physical
settings in order to heighten an understanding of the sociopolitical context of their societies
and develop our own criticisms of them. Millers use of 17th Century idiom allows us to
understand influences on John Proctor from his society, the “heat” he feels for Abigail
Williams, the “cold” between himself and wife Elizabeth, and the “weight” of the judges all
show the impact of Proctors society, and help create a man who is real for his time and place.
Likewise, Camus inclusion of French terms allow us to enter the French society as we see
Meursault drink “Café au láit” at his mother’s funeral, revealing Meursault’s continual lack of
need to “keep up appearances”. Using such rich language suited to their settings allows Miller
and Camus to heighten an understanding, and create disapproval for their portrayed societies.
Through their texts The Crucible and The Outsider, both Miller and Camus use a mastery of
technique to create lifelike recreations of single minded societies. Through the plights of their
Protagonist Proctor and Meursault, both authors use their constructs to show the merit in
challenging the confines of societies as both protagonists vindicate their lives through the
“blood sacrifice for a higher moral cause”.
SSABSA Support Materials: 533559163, last updated 3 March 2016
page 2 of 3
Annotations
Please refer also to the Performance Standards available on the SSABSA website.
understanding and analysis

The candidate shows thorough knowledge of both texts and clearly establishes an understanding
of the differences between the text types, a play and a novella; see references to stage directions,
Act divisions for the play and “perspective of a first person protagonist ’in the novella.

There is a sustained recognition of the role of the author in constructing the text and generating
the response of the reader in the context of the question i.e. disapproval of the societies under
consideration. This is specifically stated in the first sentence of the Paragraph 4 as it is in the first
sentence of Paragraph 7 but is generally evident throughout the essay.

The candidate provides perceptive and detailed analysis of a range of textual features like
characterisation, narrative perspective, use of a flawed protagonist, reductive structure and
language.

The essay explores both texts in relation to the terms of the question and integrates the
discussion of the texts moving easily between them, drawing out similarities and
differences to achieve analysis and synthesis of the connections. This is clearly illustrated
by the opening sentences of paragraphs eg Both, Contrastingly, Similarly that guide the
reader through the discussion of the connections.
application

The candidate maintains the focus on the terms of the question from the clearly defined
introduction, through the development of the argument to the summary in the conclusion although
the latter might have been more specific.

The supporting reference to the two texts in the essay is detailed and appropriate and the
quotations are incorporated naturally and fluently into the line of discussion; see in particular
Paragraph 4 and Paragraph 8 on language.
communication

Apart from some minor errors, perhaps due to pressure of time, the writing is fluent and precise
with a sophisticated vocabulary (introductory interpolation, madness of the allegorical witch
hunts, using Meursalt’s apathy as the authorial voice of his text, Vindicating his life etc)

The structure of the essay, the well controlled paragraphing and the formal register used fluently
to express the perceptive understanding and ideas show a candidate writing at a high level overall.
SSABSA Support Materials: 533559163, last updated 3 March 2016
page 3 of 3