Bohemian Prosody

Sam Shales Year 12

An open letter to SCSA, published by Sam Shales, a year 12 student, on the 14th of September 2022, promoting action to alter the ATAR English course.

Dear the School Curriculum and Standards Authority or SCSA,

I have just come from the supermarket. I wasn’t there long, as I only had a few items and was thus able to use the ‘12 items or less’ checkout. I bought a packet of snakes made by the Natural Confectionary Company and some fruit loops that were notably absent of artificial colours and flavours. No doubt you are wondering why I am telling you this. Well, if you’ll indulge me, you’ll soon find out.

I am writing on behalf of my fellow ATAR English students in the hope that you will listen to my concerns and allow English to become an easier and more accessible subject for students like me. There are many of us; the silent majority of silent mediocrities; those who simply want to be told that we are ‘officially literate’ enough to go to university.

We’re not stupid, you know. We actually like learning. But we’re not too good on the theory stuff, which seems to be your obsession. So, my question is this: does all this wordy-theory stuff actually matter? Can’t we just get on with making sure we can function in society as people who can read, write and think on a level that will allow us to do our jobs and live our lives? Do I really need to know the difference between perspective and point of view? Because I can tell you right now; I don’t.

Like I said, we’re not stupid. I know it’s supposed to be ‘12 items or fewer’. I know there’s nothing natural about natural lollies - it’s not like they were harvested - and that the lack of artificial colours and flavours is a propagandist misdirect designed to take my attention from the fact that fruit loops are basically food colouring and sugar. I’m clearly able to read between the lines, as they say. Or, as you’d say, plausibly construct inferential meanings. Isn’t that enough?

It’s not like I look at a movie poster and don’t understand it. But SCSA, you’re ruining movies for me. I thought the last Fast and Furious movie was clichéd rubbish that merely recycled tired old plot tropes and tired gender stereotypes. And worst of all, I didn’t even have to see it! I got that from the poster! All this highlighting and annotating, hunting for underlying attitudes and perspectives, and rules of thirds stuff has made me more critical than Simon Cowell!

Why is it that you can have ideas that are interesting, complex and profound but if you don’t hit one or two specific syllabus points, they’re worthless? Aren’t you guys missing the point a bit? I mean, think about Neil Armstrong. When he landed on the moon, he said, “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” We all know this. But not all of us of know he was misquoted; he actually said “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind” which is evidenced by the original radio transmission. Knowing this, you can see that what he was quoted as saying doesn’t quite make sense because the `a’ changes the meaning of the sentence. Now, should we deduct marks for the error, or give him partial credit for the fact that he was STANDING ON THE MOON at the time?

I understand that this isn’t entirely your fault. You didn’t write the dictionary or invent the English Language. But you did write the English Syllabus, and that infuriating little ‘glossary’ hidden away at the back. That little list of weirdness has more than a few problems, and I’d like to draw some of them to your attention.

Let’s start with ‘Stylistic choices’. You define this as: The selection of stylistic features to achieve a particular effect.

Ok. Not helpful, but ok. Let’s go to ‘Stylistic features’. You define them as: The ways in which aspects of texts are arranged and how they affect meaning. Examples of stylistic features are lexical choice, syntax, narrative point of view, voice, structure, language patterns and language features, both written and visual.

Right. What is an ‘aspect’ of a text? You don’t define that. Lexical choice? Nope. Syntax? Nope! Voice! Yes! You’ve got a definition for voice. Now we’re getting somewhere!

Voice: Voice, in a literary sense, is the distinct personality of a piece of writing.

Wait, what? Personality? Yes, you say. And then you add: Voice can be created through the use of syntax, punctuation, vocabulary choices, persona and dialogue.

Are you kidding me? You’ve just told me that one of the features of style is voice, and that voice is made from syntax, but syntax is also a part of style, along with lexical choices, which in a different definition you’ve called vocabulary choices, even though they mean EXACTLY THE SAME THING. You can’t do this. It’s not acceptable. The glossary needs to be specific and straightforward. Frankly, I’ve been in mazes that are easier to navigate. #hashtagbollocks! If you’re going to make us learn this stuff, don’t make it so confusing and send us round in circles!

Now look, I know you’re still reading this thinking I’m one of those entitled students who thinks English is rubbish, but I’m not. I’ve used perspective, hyperbole, in-jokes, juxtapositions, anecdotes, evidence, and a boatload of impressive words. And I want to be a PE teacher for God’s sake. How many rhetorical devices do you need to blow a whistle?

So, all I ask is this: don’t just make the syllabus less confusing, go one step further and take out the fancy stuff and just leave us with the bits we actually need to know. Trust me, we’ll figure out the rest as we go along. As American Poet Laureate, Derek Walcott once said, “The English Language is nobody’s special property,” so let me use my own words in my own way, and everyone will live happily ever after.

Warmest Regards,

From an English ATAR student (who really wants to pass the course)